Oath against modernism and the historian

[rasbat]

I was just wondering if anyone could clarify a segment of the oath against modernism for me. I think I get the general idea but I would like to know what this passage was specifically in reference to when it was issued.

“I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise”

Is this dealing with ideas of the evolution of doctrine? the quest for the historical Jesus or simply people with two faces one in the classroom and one in church when it came to historical matters and belief? or was it something else entirely?

 

[dmar198]

I was just wondering if anyone could clarify a segment of the oath against modernism for me. I think I get the general idea but I would like to know what this passage was specifically in reference to when it was issued.

“I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise”

Is this dealing with ideas of the evolution of doctrine?

I think it is. The idea that Christianity invented its own doctrines over a long period of time was very popular in the early 1900s, and secular scholars and historians were having a field day spreading the assumption that traditional Catholic beliefs were actually late additions to the Catholic faith. They called it “evolution of dogma.” As with many pseudo-scientific heresies, the theory of the evolution of dogma was not based on historical examination or any proof at all.

Instead, so many historians just assumed it, and repeated it again and again, that many people thought it was common knowledge among historians that the Church invented its beliefs gradually. The Church’s scholars often gave specific counter-examples and arguments to the contrary, but these arguments were often either ignored or laughed off without counter-argument.

I think the pope wrote this document in part to clarify that the theory of evolution, in regard to dogma, is incompatible with Catholic faith.

the quest for the historical Jesus or simply people with two faces one in the classroom and one in church when it came to historical matters and belief? or was it something else entirely?

I think the quest for the historical Jesus is an example of the theory of the evolution of dogma at work. Well, actually that’s not quite true. I think there can be a legitimate “quest for the historical Jesus” based on going to original sources and analyzing them to uncover information, and the Church supports that because the Church knows that the New Testament stands up to historical scrutiny.

The problem is that the Jesus seminar and other “questers” since the 1900s are always coming up with stuff that is not based on real historical criticism at all. They just want to spread doubt about the historical reality of the Christ of faith. Actually it’s more than that. They want to spread doubt about the historical reliability of the New Testament in general. But their doubts are not based on historical criticism, but on unhistorical and unscientific assumptions.

They assume that miracles are impossible, and when the New Testament reports that miracles happen, they conclude they were invented by late writers or editors.

They assume that the early Christians would believe anything, and when the New Testament reports that Jesus was divine, they conclude that this was invented by gullible sheep.

They assume that the early Christians had no qualms about falsifying data.

They don’t realize that the historical record confirms that the early beliefs about Jesus go back to the Apostles, and that if they really made this stuff up out of thin air, they wouldn’t devote their lives to spreading belief in something they didn’t even believe in, only to get killed for proclaiming that these things really happened.

 

[glendab]

Here’s a clue: think of all those weirdos searching fro the “historical” Jesus who think once they find Him they’ll be able to tell the truth about early Christianity and straighten everybody out.

Glenda

 

[adawgj]

I remember reading H.G. Wells “Outline of History” it seems that when writing history they added more of there opinions than historical facts. Which led to G.K. Chesterton writing “The Everlasting Man” which I really want to read.

 

[glendab]

hello Adawgj

I remember reading H.G. Wells “Outline of History” it seems that when writing history they added more of there opinions than historical facts. Which led to G.K. Chesterton writing “The Everlasting Man” which I really want to read.

Yeah and there are those who busy themselves about re-writing history so their particular denomination will appear older than it actually is. Lies upon lies to justify nonsense. They tend to bend the real Apocrypha into all kinds of shapes and search out ancient errors and claim their founders current errors are doctrine because they found a heretic long ago saying the same things. Only what happens? The Church comes along and points out the fact that the old time heresy is the same as the new. Puff and nonsense. Vanity of vanities and all things are vanity.

Glenda

 

[adawgj]

hello Adawgj

Yeah and there are those who busy themselves about re-writing history so their particular denomination will appear older than it actually is. Lies upon lies to justify nonsense. They tend to bend the real Apocrypha into all kinds of shapes and search out ancient errors and claim their founders current errors are doctrine because they found a heretic long ago saying the same things. Only what happens? The Church comes along and points out the fact that the old time heresy is the same as the new. Puff and nonsense. Vanity of vanities and all things are vanity.

Glenda

Totally agree with you. As a history major this is something I will have to watch out for.