Pius X and Modernism

  • Thread starter Thread starter PoliSciProf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PoliSciProf

Guest
Peter Steinfels has an interesting article Fighting Modernism: A Decree Shaped Catholicism in The New York Times Sept. 1, 2007. It is a discussion of the Papal Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis issued a hundred years ago by Pope Pius X. Steinfels writes: “Pascendi was a sweeping and vehement condemnation of a loose movement of Catholic biblical scholars, philosophers and theologians who were labeled “modernists.” He goes to discuss the encyclical’s defenders and critics, then and now. I am looking forward to your comments on this brief article. The link is given below.

nytimes.com/2007/09/01/us/01beliefs.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin
 
A somewhat thoughtful article. I learned a few things I didn’t know before. Although I admit that statements like this cause me a bit of heartburn:

“Major documents solemnly approved by the Second Vatican Council — on the nature of the church, on Scripture and on worship — cannot be squared with aspects of “Pascendi,” nor can many statements by Pope John Paul II, or the most recent book on Jesus by Pope Benedict XVI.”

Well if that’s true we might as well pack up our bags and go home, call it quits with Catholicism. Obviously I don’t agree with this magisterial-sounding pronouncement on Peter Steinfels’ part, I believe that we have to look at these aspects of Vatican II as organic development of the material in “Pascendi,” not as novel elements that “cannot be squared” with it.
 
CollegeKid said:
A somewhat thoughtful article. I learned a few things I didn’t know before. Although I admit that statements like this cause me a bit of heartburn:

“Major documents solemnly approved by the Second Vatican Council — on the nature of the church, on Scripture and on worship — cannot be squared with aspects of “Pascendi,” nor can many statements by Pope John Paul II, or the most recent book on Jesus by Pope Benedict XVI.”

Well if that’s true we might as well pack up our bags and go home, call it quits with Catholicism. Obviously I don’t agree with this magisterial-sounding pronouncement on Peter Steinfels’ part, I believe that we have to look at these aspects of Vatican II as organic development of the material in “Pascendi,” not as novel elements that “cannot be squared” with it.
Click to expand...
Vatican II did not make any infallible statements which had not already been made.
 
The NY Times is the most outrageously liberal newspaper in the United States. It comes as no surprise that they’re trying to find closet modernists among Catholic scholars, or trying to make papal documents look incongruous.
 
Leave it to Steinfels to write such an article. The first order of business is to read the encyclical and the list of errors it condemned. (It probably is still carried by the Daughters of St. Paul.) When I read the material years ago I was struck by the fact that so many of the errors condemned were very much in evidence today, even in the Church. (I agree with Mat
 
Saint_Gemma said:
Vatican II did not make any infallible statements which had not already been made.
Click to expand...
OK, but I’m not about to point my finger at an ecumenical council of the Church conducted under the auspices of two Popes, as a layman, and say “Here’s where you went wrong.”
 
“If the world changes, should not religion also change?”

This is a classical belief of the modernist and it is condemned in Pascendi 26.0 “First of all they the modernists} lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change and must in fact be changed”

How many times have we heard from theologians that there is truth in every religion. Even in pagan religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism there is truth and holiness.

Pascendi 14.2 condemns the teaching of the modernist that “ this doctrine of …every religion,even that of paganism, must be held to be true…modernists do not deny, but actually maintain…that all religions are true”

How many times have we heard theologians say that the liturgy must be adapted to the modern times and to the customs of different people?
Consider this from the Constitution on the Liturgy.
40.In some places and circumstances, however, **an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed, **and this entails greater difficulties. Wherefore:
  1. The competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, must, in this matter, carefully and prudently consider which elements from the **traditions and culture of individual peoples might appropriately be admitted into divine worship. **Adaptations, which are judged to be useful or necessary should when, be submitted to the Apostolic See, by whose consent they may be introduced.
Pascendi 26.0 “The chief stimulus of the evolution of worship consists in the need of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples…. evolution in the Church is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and harmonizing itself with existing societies” ------------this is condemned ‘

More from Vatican II* Constitution on the Liturgy *
  1. Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters, which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community; rather does she respect and foster the genius and talents of the various races and peoples. Anything in these peoples’ way of life which is not indissolubly bound up with superstition and error she studies with sympathy and, if possible, preserves intact. Sometimes in fact she admits such things into the liturgy itself, so long as they harmonize with its true and authentic spirit.
And how many times have we heard that the laity must be more involved in the Church…

Pascendi 27.0 this is condemned “ that most pernicious doctrine which would make the laity the factor of progress in the Church”

Pascendi is “ex cathedra”. It fulfills all the requirements. Pope Pius X made sure all knew that Pascendi was to be followed.

PRAESTANTIA SCRIPTURAE
…our encyclical letters “Pascendi dominici gregis” given on September 8 of this same year, we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter “Docentes” of the constitution “Apostolicae Sedis,” which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10prasc.htm
 
stmaria: nice response–it is what I was hoping to get when I posted this thread. I’ll think about it and respond sometime soon (I hope I can find the time–I am into a busy period). Let’s hope others engage this issue.
 
stmaria said:
How many times have we heard from theologians that there is truth in every religion. Even in pagan religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism there is truth and holiness.

Pascendi 14.2 condemns the teaching of the modernist that “ this doctrine of …every religion,even that of paganism, must be held to be true…modernists do not deny, but actually maintain…that all religions are true”

**You set up a false dichotomy where there is none. There is no conflict between the post-conciliar Church and the pre-conciliar Church on the above issue." The MODERNIST, within or without the Church, may well teach that all religions are true. That isn’t what the Church teaches at all. She teaches that there are elements WITHIN the various religions that may well be true insofar as they agree with the revealed Truth contained in its fullness in the Catholic Faith. She doesn’t fail to honor that, but neither does she fail to proclaim the fullness of the truth which the other religions fall short of. That isn’t “modernism.” That’s common sense. Most faiths hold in common that lying is bad, that murder is evil, that we should “do unto others as we would have them do unto us.” The last is fairly universal in being stated by most religions, though it is phrased differently. We can agree that other religions are correct on those scores without committing the modernist heresy of “indifferntism,” or “relativism” by saying that they are “as good as” or as salvific as the One True Faith, that contains and IS the fullness of Truth. The truth they have does not make up for the truth they lack and the Church does not in the magisterium teach otherwise. But where in Pascendi does Pope St. Pius teach that the other religions are utterly devoid of any truth whatsoever? **
Click to expand...
 
Where in *Pascendi *does it say that there is truth and holliness in pagan religions?

14.2
How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate
 
stmaria said:
Where in *Pascendi *does it say that there is truth and holliness in pagan religions?

14.2
How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. It doesn’t mention it at all, from what I can see. But Pascendi is not the sum total of the Church’s teaching and because it is silent on that score does not mean that the Church does not acknowledge (because she does) that there are ***elements ***of truth in some of the various religions. That does not mean that she teaches that they, each in their totality, hold the fullness of truth or that they do not have serious defects (indeed, she teaches that those elements of truth that they DO have point to the totality of truth professed and taught by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church). There is no discrepancy between what the Church taught then or now, though there are admittedly priests today who teach differently.
 
stmaria said:
Where in *Pascendi *does it say that there is truth and holliness in pagan religions?

14.2
How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate
Click to expand...
A post-conciliar document also clarifies what the Church’s stance is:
Dominus Iesus:
This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another’”.91 If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.92
Click to expand...
No one is to hold other religions as true. This is outlined here as religious relativism and is contrary to Catholic belief. But it recognizes some elements of truth that a religion may contain. Just because a protestant may be trinitarian doesn’t mean trinitarianism is false just because protestantism is.

Both documents are in perfect harmony.
 
Unitas said:
A post-conciliar document also clarifies what the Church’s stance is:

No one is to hold other religions as true. This is outlined here as religious relativism and is contrary to Catholic belief. But it recognizes some elements of truth that a religion may contain. Just because a protestant may be trinitarian doesn’t mean trinitarianism is false just because protestantism is.

Both documents are in perfect harmony.
Click to expand...
I can’t image Saint Pope Pius X saying that he “rejects nothing that is true and holy” in pagan religions.
On pagan religions from Nostra Aetate
2. …Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and** holy **in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.(4)

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions?
What is holy in a pagan religion?
1 Cor.10 20 “the pagans sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to become sharers with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and also the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and likewise the table of demons”

First epistle of John 4:2-3 “every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, while every spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God. Such is the spirit of the antichrist”

“Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust”
Hindus believe in the following divinities: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Shiva, the destroyer. Hindus worship many animals as gods. Cows are the most sacred, but they also worship monkeys, snakes and other animals. How can Hindus make a “a flight to God with love and trust” when they worship false gods? When they worship the devil?

How can the Conciliar Church speak of “supreme enlightenment” in Buddhism? How can there be any enlightenment without knowledge of the true God and with the false belief of reincarnation?

Also from Nostra Aetate:
“Upon the Muslims, too, the church looks with esteem. They adore one God, living and enduring, merciful and all-powerful, Maker of heaven and earth and Speaker to men… Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.”

Once again we can recognize the utterly contradictory position of the Council. It praises the Muslims because “they revere Him (Jesus) as a prophet;” yet, they deny His divinity which Jesus Christ openly declared and most powerfully demonstrated by His miracles (especially His Resurrection). If the Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet, how can they claim that He is not divine. Prophets speak the truth from God, and Jesus Christ proclaimed Himself the Son of God!
 
Please stay on topic or I will have to close the thread. Take discussion of side issues to new threads/established threads in the appropriate fora. Thank you.
 
Ironically, much of post-Vatican I Catholicism seems to bear a distinctly Modernist tone.

Sometimes people here get confused between Modernism and Postmodernism.

Postmodernism is the rejection of objective truth, empiricism, systematic models, theories and the ‘illusion’ of impartial observation.

Modernism, or at least one branch of it, is linked in with industrialisation and the development of the empirical sciences. It’s the belief that for each question, there is only ever one correct answer, or one most correct answer, one perfect formula to explain each natural law, one most efficient way to run a steam engine, one correct chemical name for each compound, one most perfect social system for human development, etc. etc.

Looking at the Church since the late 19th century, Popes have pronounced on more matters of doctrine in that short century and a half than in almost the whole of the rest of Catholic history. More things have been dogmatically defined, fewer issues have remained open to the vagueries of the opinions of Early Church Fathers or the contemplation of mystics, and more and more have become imprisoned in forms of words that are considered final and definitive. The ‘spirit of Vatican II’ that saw many Catholics become more liberal about what they believed may be some kind of reaction against that, but it was an ill-informed reaction, sadly owing more to post-modernism rather than to the anti-modernist naturalism of the Church’s own history.
 
Unitas said:
…Both documents are in perfect harmony.
Click to expand...
Well maybe. 🤷

Thing is, Pascendi I think, in the part stmaria posted, addressed exactly what has been going on on a massive scale since VII - namely this part…read carefully:
But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate.
(Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 14:2)
I think Pope St. Pius X here is expressing his amazement at these folks who heap praises on the propegators of false religions. In fact, it looks like Pope St. Pius X is suspicious of these folks and thinks they cause much scandal and confusion among the faithful. Problem is, this whole attitude - these sorts of actions that we are warned about - has been the modus operendi of the Church since Vatican II. It seems the folks Pope St. Pius X has warned us about here have taken the leadership role in the Church in the post-Conciliar era.

Now we can nuance the heck out of the situation - say that it’s only the “elements of truth” we are praising and honoring. And if we read the current documents close enough, we’ll see that we still believe we have the “fullness of truth” etc (and this whole “degree” of truth and “degrees” of communion concepts are something new also, but that’s for another discussion perhaps). But the fact of the matter is that the Pope here was absoutely right - it is still confusing and* is* scandalous to many of the faithful and can (and I think has) led to religous indifferentism by many. Such writings as Pope John Paul II’s Ut unum sint and actions like at Assissi and with the Koran kissing, etc. can easily “convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons…but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess.”

Now this does demonstrate a certain contradiction between Pope St. Pius X and the Church since Vatican II - mostly on the level of actions and the way in which the teachings of Christ’s Church are presented - ergo, in prudential matters, not necessarily in matters of faith and moral doctrine. It’s a fine line, but it’s a line nonetheless. To not think a secular rag like the NY Times is going to pick up on it is silly. Almost as silly as thinking the NY Times is going to take the time and effort to demonsrate the beforementioned “nuances” that can with difficulty reconcile the current situation with the past. It ain’t gonna happen.

Given all that, I think we, as members of the Church, have a right to voice our legitimate concerns here regarding these things. Souls are at stake - our own and those of our loved ones - and those souls outside the visible bonds of the Church who now do not here a clear voice calling them home. The voice has become muffled in ecumanism.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad
 
stmaria said:
I can’t image Saint Pope Pius X saying that he “rejects nothing that is true and holy” in pagan religions.
On pagan religions from Nostra Aetate
2. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and** holy **in these religions. …

The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions?
What is holy in a pagan religion?
Click to expand...
What is holy in a pagan religion is whatever truth they contain that was revealed first to His Church.
“Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust”
Hindus believe in the following divinities: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Shiva, the destroyer. Hindus worship many animals as gods. Cows are the most sacred, but they also worship monkeys, snakes and other animals. How can Hindus make a “a flight to God with love and trust” when they worship false gods? When they worship the devil?
Click to expand...
How can the Conciliar Church speak of “supreme enlightenment” in Buddhism? How can there be any enlightenment without knowledge of the true God and with the false belief of reincarnation?
Click to expand...
Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation.
Click to expand...
It’s says that “it teaches” thus. Not that it is correct. It’s showing that countering the restlessness of the human heart is to be commended, for that is truth.
Also from Nostra Aetate:
“Upon the Muslims, too, the church looks with esteem. They adore one God, living and enduring, merciful and all-powerful, Maker of heaven and earth and Speaker to men… Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.”
Click to expand...
This is a general synopsis of other teachings, not saying their entire belief structures are correct.
Once again we can recognize the utterly contradictory position of the Council.
Click to expand...
Sure, if we all accept your bias when reading it.
It praises the Muslims because “they revere Him (Jesus) as a prophet;” yet, they deny His divinity which Jesus Christ openly declared and most powerfully demonstrated by His miracles (especially His Resurrection). If the Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet, how can they claim that He is not divine. Prophets speak the truth from God, and Jesus Christ proclaimed Himself the Son of God!
Click to expand...
I think we can all agree that since the Church is the repsoistory of all revealed truth that all revealed truth is then Catholic in nature.

If there is any truth in other religions then that truth is first Catholic. Whatever is held in that religion that is contrary to the (Catholic) truth cannot be called truth. We have already seen that is it wrong to hold a religious relativism. But any real truth is to be respected because (since all revealed truth is Catholic) it is truth.

Since protestantism is error, would that mean every last thing they believe is error as well? Is belief in Jesus as God error? Is the Trinity error? IS the salvific nature of Christ’s sacrifice error? No. Those are truths that are to be respected ebcause those are Catholic truths. We may respect another faith’s truths and still (and must) reject their errors.

Both documents from the pre and post-concilar eras are in agreement. Where the problem lies is in misinterpretations of these documents to either support a claim of a double-standard or as an abuse to support one’s relativistic views.

You want them to contradict because it supports your agenda. But both are reconcilable.

Everything is to be read in light of tradition. When Nostra Aetate and Dominus Iesus are both read in light of Pascendi all are in agreement. It is your interpretation that makes them contradict.

But many liberals as well as many traditionalists fail to read documents of both eras as the same context; Many liberals simply forget documents were actually written before the council and interpret VII however they wish and some traditionalists fail to interpret post-conciliar documents in the context of pre-conciliar ones.
 
*Nostra aetate *praises pagan religions. Read the words that were chosen by its authors. “Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery…profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust”
They do not believe in the Christian God! To say they can have a “flight to God” is a lie. . Hindus worship many animals as gods. Cows are the most sacred, but they also worship monkeys, snakes and other animals. Hindus believe in the following divinities: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Shiva, the destroyer
“Upon the Muslims, too, the church looks with esteem” Islam is a false religion yet *Nostra Aetate *uses the word “esteem”. One would assume the authors of *Nostra Aetae *abhors such religions yet by praising them they act as if they approve of them.
Pope Pius X directly address this idea of praising pagan religions.
Pascendi 14.2
…But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate.

Pascendi 14.2
How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate."

Here is what Nostra Aetate should have said in regards to the pagan religion of Hinduism.
Pope Leo XIII AD Extremas #1
“ Through his extraordinary perseverance, he converted hundred of thousands of Hindus from the myths and vile superstitions of the Brahmans to the true religion…many are still deprived of the truth, miserably imprisoned in the darkness of superstitution”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top