Modernism

[ronin67]

Sorry but, prideful Pope? What does the Pope owe Martin Luther? He’s a priest, he should humbly submit himself to the Pope, not the other way around.

Your answer is exactly what the pope thought. Then look what happened. Next thing your going to tell me is all the popes were good? It seems to me we had quite a few who strayed from the path of righteousness. Do you even read the churches own history? Denial of sin is the work of the devil. Pride the original sin. Be careful sir. May God bless.

Ed

 

[Gregory_I]

Martin Luther didn’t have just a few questions. Because those questions were cleared up at the Diet of Wurms, which he refused to take seriously.

Also, Johann Tetzel, whom he basically defamed wrote a 103 point counter theses to his 95 theses.

Luther was a passionate and Arrogant man who basically had the attitude of “My way or the highway.”

He was unwilling to be convinced, so don’t fell sympathy for him. He made his choice in the face of truth.

 

[laszlo]

He was unwilling to be convinced, so don’t fell sympathy for him. He made his choice in the face of truth.

Things are never so black and white. Luther did not started and was not the only one behind the reformation. The process started with Wickliffe, John Hus hundred years earlier, and regardless of Martin Luthers conviction it would not be stopped.

Martin Luther had basically honest intentions for reform, the Church was unwilling to take the problem seriously on that time. The changes started only through the XIX Ecumenical council almost a generation later.

 

[Padraig1972]

Reforms are the sources to most of the wrongdoings in this world. Today, tomorrow and in the future. Because, in the eagerness to change, one simply forgets the uniqueness from the older times.

Would you want a church with mass with speaches and musical sections that has got nothing at all to do with the catholic faith? Do you?

This is what 9 of 10 so-called reforms does. Over here in Norway, the lutheran state church has become like that and people say: i cant pray anymore, it is too much talk and nonesense.

And the government, well…they call for more reforms. Reforms, reforms, reforms. I say: preserve and stay true.

 

[ronin67]

Reforms are the sources to most of the wrongdoings in this world. Today, tomorrow and in the future. Because, in the eagerness to change, one simply forgets the uniqueness from the older times.

Would you want a church with mass with speaches and musical sections that has got nothing at all to do with the catholic faith? Do you?

This is what 9 of 10 so-called reforms does. Over here in Norway, the lutheran state church has become like that and people say: i cant pray anymore, it is too much talk and nonesense.

And the government, well…they call for more reforms. Reforms, reforms, reforms. I say: preserve and stay true.

Agreed sir. Not all reforms are good. In the case of Martin Luther, it was. The Catholic Church has made many agreements with Luther’s “Grace along, by Faith Alone”. So if the Holy Catholic Church is willing to accept many of Luther’s points now after the fact, why aren’t members of the Catholic church willing too??? To the credit of the Holy Catholic church, it has come forward and admitted many wrongs conducted in the past. This is what I like about the Catholic church. If they screw up, they admit it. I really do like the current Pope. Especially about the remarks he stated about Islam. He tells it like it is, with the compassion of Christ.

May God Bless!

Ed

May God Bless!

Ed

 

[Timothysis]

5 pages of posts and still no one can actually define “modernism.”

“Modernism” is used here, like “liberal” or “neo-con” are used in politics, as a blanket term to ascribe a name to something that one does not agree with and must make an “enemy.”

There has never been a precise definition of “modernism” in the Church.

 

[At_Trent]

Agreed sir. Not all reforms are good. In the case of Martin Luther, it was.
Ed

Heresy is not good. No matter how hard you try to justify it.

 

[StTommyMore]

Heresy is not good. No matter how hard you try to justify it.

Read the History. Martin Luther had some valid concerns, and if we were honest, we would concede that the Church did nothing to address his concerns. The Church shares some of the blame for the Reformation.

 

[kozlosap]

5 pages of posts and still no one can actually define “modernism.”

“Modernism” is used here, like “liberal” or “neo-con” are used in politics, as a blanket term to ascribe a name to something that one does not agree with and must make an “enemy.”

There has never been a precise definition of “modernism” in the Church.

You hit the preverbal nail straight on the head!! “Modernist” is used as term , here on CAF, to describe any poster that disagrees with the notion that the Church was much better off before VII. 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!

 

[Gregory_I]

Martin Luther was not honest. If he was, he would have accepted the dindings of the Diet of Wurms, but he did not. He chose to disregard ecclesiastical authority in favor of his own reading of the Bible.

Martin Luther was not confused over indulgences.

If you read one of his sermons in 1516, ONE YEAR before he praises their use and gives an orthodox description of them! I will try and find it.

THe guy was not stable, and had a guilt complex. THis led to his need to constantly find a way to “feel” better, and he found it in Sola Scriptura. It was basically compulsory, as a psychological need. His conscience was ill-formed, and it affected his orthodoxy.

 

[At_Trent]

Read the History. Martin Luther had some valid concerns, and if we were honest, we would concede that the Church did nothing to address his concerns. The Church shares some of the blame for the Reformation.

Yes, and if we were honest, we’d see the SSPX has valid concerns as well.

Funny how it works isn’t it ? Here we are looking for saving graces in regard to heretics, but condemn a group of clergy who only want Doctrine and Dogma left alone.

 

[StTommyMore]

Yes, and if we were honest, we’d see the SSPX has valid concerns as well.

Funny how it works isn’t it ? Here we are looking for saving graces in regard to heretics, but condemn a group of clergy who only want Doctrine and Dogma left alone.

The Vatican has bent over backwards for the SSPX. They need to practice humility and submit to the Holy Father, instead of issuing more demands every time concessions are made.

 

[At_Trent]

The Vatican has bent over backwards for the SSPX. They need to practice humility and submit to the Holy Father, instead of issuing more demands every time concessions are made.

I wish they would, and get to work helping restore truly Catholic schools and such.

But Luther was a heretic. He rejected the Catholic Church. Nothing he did trivialized that.

 

[StTommyMore]

I wish they would, and get to work helping restore truly Catholic schools and such.

But Luther was a heretic. He rejected the Catholic Church. Nothing he did trivialized that.

Read into the history and get the full story. It isn’t so black and white. He did not set out to start a new “church.” I am not attempting to exonerate Luther, but to say that the issues were not as simple as they seem.

 

[Padraig1972]

You hit the preverbal nail straight on the head!! “Modernist” is used as term , here on CAF, to describe any poster that disagrees with the notion that the Church was much better off before VII. 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!

You make it sound just so easy, it never is and i guess that as a person i like the uniqueness in our church and yes, i`m not that into reforms just for the sake of reformation.

So disqulifying me for not being born 10-15 years earlier, OK…but it is unfair. I am not critizising our church or going against her canon laws, i just express concern for modernism, that it also willl take away some of that old glory that our church has. That is all.

 

[At_Trent]

Read into the history and get the full story. It isn’t so black and white. He did not set out to start a new “church.” I am not attempting to exonerate Luther, but to say that the issues were not as simple as they seem.

Luther was a heretic. No matter what his motives or reasons. I’ve read enough … he was nuts.

 

[TEPO]

Read into the history and get the full story. It isn’t so black and white. He did not set out to start a new “church.” I am not attempting to exonerate Luther, but to say that the issues were not as simple as they seem.

Do you think Catholicism has learned anything from Luther…? Good or bad…?

 

[Vico]

THIS IS THE BIG ONE!

“Modernist dogma consists entirely in the process of penetrating and refining primitive formula as required by circumstances, not logically but vitally.”

Constantly. What was said in the past has no bearing because, well, we thought of a different spin on it NOW, don’t you realize?

No. I don’t.

Very common today: personal revelation vs the authority of the Church. In the encyclical Pascendi* Domini Gregis*, Pope Pius X described the Modernist attitude, (which he also identified with broad and liberal Protestantism) rejecting dependence on the Church:
For in the same way as the Church is a vital emanation of the collectivity of consciences, so too authority emanates vitally from the Church itself. Authority, therefore, like the Church, has its origin in the religious conscience, and that being so, is subject to it. Should it disown this dependence it becomes tyranny.

 

[Gregory_I]

If you want to know what modernism consists of, read “liberalism is a sain” and read the excerpts on what a liberal Catholic is. lol. THeir definition of liberal in the 19th century is almost what we call conservative today! For example:

"The degree of our offense towards men can only be measured by the degree of our obligation (105) to him. Charity is primarily the love of God, secondarily the love of our neighbor for God’s sake. To sacrifice the first is to abandon the latter. Therefore to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a true act of charity. Not to offend our neighbor for the love of God is a sin.

Modern Liberalism reverses this order. It imposes a false notion of charity; our neighbor first, and, if at all, God afterwards. By its reiterated and trite accusations of intolerance, it has succeeded in disconcerting even some staunch Catholics. But our rule is too plain and to concrete to admit of misconception. It is: Sovereign Catholic inflexibility is sovereign Catholic charity. This charity is practiced in relation to our neighbor when in his own interest, he is crossed, humiliated and chastised. it is practiced in relation to a third party, when he is defended from the unjust aggression of another, as when he is protected from the contagion of error by unmasking its authors and abettors and showing them in their true light as iniquitous and pervert, by holding them up to the contempt, horror and execration of all.*** It is practiced in relation to God when, for His glory and in His service, it becomes necessary to silence all human considerations, to trample under foot all human (106) respect, to sacrifice all human interests, and even life itself to attain this highest of all ends. All this is Catholic inflexibility and inflexible Catholicity in the practice of that pure love which constitutes sovereign charity. The saints are the types of this unswerving and sovereign fidelity to God, the heroes of charity and religion. Because in our times there are so few true inflexibles in the love of God, so also are there few uncompromisers in the order of charity. Liberal charity is condescending, affectionate, even tender in appearance, but at bottom it is an essential contempt for the true good of men, of the supreme interests of truth and of God.* It is human selflove usurping the throne of he Most High and demanding that worship which belongs to God alone."

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.

Our inflexibility is our Charity: For we will the good, which is TRUTH for all men out of love of God.

We DO NOT will some warm fuzzies in your general direction… .

God first, NOT YOU. THat is true Catholic charity.

 

[dmorgan]

I

Our inflexibility is our Charity: For we will the good, which is TRUTH for all men out of love of God.

We DO NOT will some warm fuzzies in your general direction… .

God first, NOT YOU. THat is true Catholic charity.

Well done!