Pius X and Modernism

[stmaria]

Does the Church teach that one religion is as good as another? Not openly. That would be heresy. But the actions of the Church imply that one religion is as good as another.
Before Vatican II mixed marriages were forbidden. The new teaching allowing mixed marriages implies that one religion is as good as another.
On Christian Marriage
CASTI CONNUBII
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE DECEMBER 31, 1930
82. They, therefore, who rashly and heedlessly contract mixed marriages, from which the maternal love and providence of the Church dissuades her children for very sound reasons, fail conspicuously in this respect, sometimes with danger to their eternal salvation. This attitude of the Church to mixed marriages appears in many of her documents, all of which are summed up in the Code of Canon Law: “Everywhere and with the greatest strictness the Church forbids marriages between baptized persons, one of whom is a Catholic and the other a member of a schismatical or heretical sect; and if there is, add to this, the danger of the falling away of the Catholic party and the perversion of the children, such a marriage is **forbidden also by the divine law.” **
Now, the Church accepts mixed marriages. A priest can even assist at the wedding in a Protestant Church.
"For appropriate pastoral reasons, a bishop can grant a
dispensation from the Catholic form of marriage and can permit the marriage to take place in a non-Catholic church with a non-
Catholic minister as the officiating minister. A priest may not
only attend such a ceremony but may also address, pray with, and bless the couple.
A mixed marriage is now good for ecumenism.
Norms of ecumenism
145. In view, however, of the growing number of mixed marriages in many parts of the world, the Church includes within its urgent pastoral solicitude coup- les preparing to enter, or already having entered, such marriages. These mar- riages, even if they have their own particular difficulties, "contain numerous elements that could well be made good use of and develop both for their intrinsic value and for the contribution they can make to the ecumenical movement…

While the Catholic parent is obligated to raise the child as a Catholic,the Catholic parent is not held responsible if the child of such a marriage is never baptized or is not brought in the Catholic Church.
Norms of ecumenism
151. In carrying out this duty of transmitting the Catholic faith to the children, the Catholic parent will do so with respect for the religious freedom and conscience of the other parent and with due regard for the unity and permanence of the marriage and for the maintenance of the communion of the family. If, notwithstanding the Catholic’s best efforts, the children are not baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church, the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of Canon Law.

Before Vatican II the non-Catholic party had to swear that they would allow the child to be baptized and raised Catholic before the marriage could even take place.
…the non Catholic party swears that not only will he/she not interfere with the education of the children according to the unchanging teaching and traditions of the Roman Catholic faith, but in fact shall so act as to insure their education in this way…the non Catholic swears that he/she in no way will hinder the Catholic spouse, either by word or deed or pressure in the practice of his/her traditional Roman Catholic faith…In practice of this faith by the Catholic spouse, the non Catholic will not only not interfere but will cooperate with the Catholic and make whatsoever sacrifices are necessary to assist the Catholic*.”[Code of Canon Law 1917 Can. 1061]*
After Vatican II the Catholic party was required to declare his or her intention of raising the child Catholic but the non-Catholic party was not required to do anything.

“The Catholic party to a mixed marriage is required to declare his
(her) intention of continuing practice of the Catholic faith and
to promise to do all in his (her) power to share his (her) faith
with the children born of the marriage by having them baptized and raised as Catholics. No declarations or promises are required of the non-Catholic party, but he (she) must be informed of the declaration and promise made by the Catholic.”

There is quite a difference between now and then. Does this not imply that one religion is as good as another?

 

[DJim]

Hey, stmaria, dustinsdad–

Looks like another fun discussion ahead.

Would each of you do me a favor? Without quoting a single ecclesiastical document directly, could you, in your own words, please define the term “Modernism”?

What does it actually mean??? Again, please no quotes, but in your own words, according to your understanding, please define it as best you can…

Secondly, can anyone explain what St. Paul was doing in Acts 17 at the Areopagus in Athens?

That poor misguided apostle was (gasp!) finding “truth” in a pagan religion!

“As I walked around looking at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, ‘To a God Unknown.’ Now, what you are thus worshiping in ignorance I intend to make known to you…”

Now, go ahead an show me how what St. Paul was doing is somehow above reproach, but what is in “Nostrae Aetate” is “modernist.”

I’ll wait…

DJim

 

[Unitas]

You are quoting almost word for word the way in which a modernist writes.
Pascendi 14.2
. 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.

And what you write sounds like that of a sedevacantist.

What I write is in agreement with both post and pre-conciliar documents.

The Church’s stance is that any truth found in other religions can be respected. As I said before since the Catholic Church is the repository of all revealed truth, all revealed truth is therefore Catholic in nature.

Being Catholic not only means more acces to more truth as you said but access to all revealed truth.

Pascendi says that modernists claim Catholicism corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. I’m saying that Catholicism is the origin of Christianity. Catholicism is the the complete truth as revealed to mankind by God. If you want the full salvific Truth, the Catholic Church is the only place to find it.

What I write and what pascendi condemns from your quote are not the same thing. Your accusation is a strawman.

Even Aquinas respected the truth (logos) of the ancient greek philosophers. Was that indifferentialism? Before then Catholicism was nowhere to be found. But the Catholic truth (logos) was there. Why? because faith and reason are not mutually exclusive and God’s Natural Law is written on every man’s heart by being made in His image. Can we not respect that?

If another religion contains some part of the Catholic truth, this logos we can respect that and still reject their errors. That is not indifferentialism as you’re accusing.

As I said before, if a protestant believes in the Trinity, since protestantism is error that does not mean the doctrine of the Trinity is error as well. We can still respect the Catholic truth they accept but reject their errors.

Your accusation of the Church even passively supporting indifferentialism is your own injection into the text. If other liberal theologians who call themselves Catholic adhere to this heresy and then claim to be in line with the magisterium that is their problem. They’re ignoring the context the same as you are. I’ve plainly shown that when we take other documents of the Church into context your accusation is clearly wrong.

 

[Unitas]

Does the Church teach that one religion is as good as another? Not openly. That would be heresy. But the actions of the Church imply that one religion is as good as another.

So are you accusing the Church of passively supporting heresy?

 

[DustinsDad]

…Without quoting a single ecclesiastical document directly, could you, in your own words, please define the term “Modernism”? What does it actually mean???

Impossible to do in in a few paragraphs - at least to give the topic its due treatment. It is an extremely complicated thing with many heads and many branches and many aspects. Pius warned about it as such, but you don’t want quotes so you’ll have to take my word for it

And what the heck, I’ll try to desribe a few aspects of it. .

First of all, it’s a philosphy/theology/approach to religion that is at it’s root agnostic. It says something to the effect of man can only know the Divine through his sense-perception, and since his senses can’t be trusted, absolute unchangable truth is not really obtainable on this side of heaven. This is the primary reason why modernists loathe defined dogmas. While some may admit the dogmas were useful at one time, in the present time, they’ll say, their usefulness has passed. You want to try to understand, for example, why some women want to become preists - and even try to do it secretly - and yet remain in the Church and call themselves Catholic…understand modernism and you’ll get it - they don’t believe in defined dogmas - they think they can change. Even saying that a dogma can’t change is itself a dogma, so that won’t convince them. They really think that they’re right and that the Church just has to “catch up with them.”

Tied in with this is that this sense perception of the Divine is all more or less valid. One can’t dispute the sense perception of the Divine in, say, Buddism or what not. Therefore, this is tied in with the idea that all religions are more or less valid, and all religions are more or less pathways to the Divine. A Catholic modernist might believe the Catholic religion to be more “valid” and more “true”, but he doesn’t discount the truth in other religions - he’ll see them as valid sense perceptions of the Divine in some “mysterious” way known only to the Divine.

A modernist is also an ecumenist extrordinare - he never ever would think of trying to get anyone to convert to anything (accept perhaps his own modernist beliefs). You know - the old, “A Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Protestant a better Protestant, a Catholic a better Catholic” line. We’ve all heard these sorts of things before - you know, we’re all on the pathyway to God, all connected, all children of God, etc so we need to just work together to build a perfect world (a modernist is solely fixated on this world - not in the world to come). But the thing is, when you look at all the different teachings you see the contradictions, that’s why modernists hate defined dogmas (once again), because they shatter the illusion of their notion of ecumenism. A “better” Catholic is by his very religious beliefs going to attempt to convert others. Same holds true for a “better” Muslim, etc. Therefore, the first order of business for the Modernist is to speak vaguely and ambiguously, so as not to offend and not to draw out the distinctions between all the varying “pathways” to God. To the modernist, these (dogmas) are all just man-made roadblocks to the true unity of all mankind and they can’t be trusted as absolute truth because that absolute truth is unobtainable due to our human limitations. They may have been useful at one time, but they’ve outlived their usefullness and must be disgarded. By the way, this aspect of modernism is also tied in with freemasonry’s belief system - but maybe I won’t go there .

Oh, and one other aspect of modernism…this belief system doesn’t trust miracles. It believes that man’s religoius sense and “needs” thrusts miracles backward in time onto certain “religious” events - such as that occured in the life of Jesus, and makes miracles (out of their “need” for them) out of otherwise extraordinary - but nonetheless non-miraculous events. Ever hear a priest give the line about the story of the loaves and fishes just Jesus getting everyone to “share”. That’s a primary example.

That’s about all I’m going to attempt to explain here. I’d reccomend this book to anyone wanting to learn more. It’s based almost entirely on Pascendi, and was praised by Pope St. Pius X himself during his lifetime. Pascendi Dominici Gregis is the best expose on modernism available - and this book breaks it down in such a way as to make the document a little easier to grasp - though it’s still a difficult topic simply because modernism itself is so darn fuzzy and hard to pin down.

g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/41DT0W40BKL.AA240.jpg

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…Secondly, can anyone explain what St. Paul was doing in Acts 17 at the Areopagus in Athens?

Trying to convert them to the One True Religion.

Written in the Natural Law is the need for every man to worship God. The pagans here were examples of this, for because of their ignorance of the Divinely Revealed Truth, they attempted to fufill this natural law in other pagan ways - Paul used this aspect of their* false* religion as the way to start the call to conversion to the One True Religion.

Paul made no bones about it - that in times past, God “winked” at this sort of thing, but now that he was there to preach the Gospel - a choice had to be made and a judement was-a-comin’…
Acts 17:30-31
And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should every where do penance. Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed; giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead.
He didn’t spend months and years and lots of breath praising them for their pagan practices, he recognized them for what they were - attempts to answer the call of the Natural Law written into their hearts in their time of ignorance. Now that time had passed, for Paul is there to preach the Risen Lord and the Truth. Notice what happens next…
Acts 17:32-34
And when they had heard of the resurrection of the dead, some indeed mocked, but others said: We will hear thee again concerning this matter. So Paul went out from among them. But certain men adhering to him, did believe; among whom was also Dionysius, the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.
So once the Gospel was rejected by most and accepted by few, Paul didn’t stick around to “make the world a better place” with the unbelievers, he didn’t stick around to make the pagans better pagans - there is no record of a massive ecumenical interfaith worship - he preached the Gospel, told 'em how it was, and moved on. It looks to me like the few new believers here went with Paul.

Peace in Christ,

Dustinsdad

 

[DustinsDad]

He may or he may not.

Thing is - past documents didn’t leave this room for error. They were explicit, direct, and clear. I don’t think we can say the same for the current trend. At least not with a straight face.

It depends upon the strength of his preconceptions as well as the context (if any) in which it was read. The Church provides much context that would be error to ignore.

Well, the Church does provide much context in the sense that they still exist and they still stand - but they are for all practical purposes hidden from most folks. You’re average lay catholic don’t know such things exist, and if they know they exist they think they’ve been overturned because that is the way the majority of the Church is acting these days- even within the clergy.

In this particular case, you’re assuming this religiously indifferent fellow should unearth a 100-year old papal encyclical that he’s probably not even heard of - certainly not from the pulpit - in order to understand the VII document properly and “in context”.

Sad thing is, it would have taken maybe a paragraph or two in said document to put it in this context - but it did not.

It also has to do with if he was honestly allowing God to lead him to the Truth…

God leads by his own graces indeed - but for the most part, God uses human beings as instruments of this conversion and in this leading to the Truth in His Church.

The notion that if “we just be nice” folks will come to the Truth and convert has been proven, well, dead wrong. I’m sure many had the best of intentions here - but it ain’t a workin’. I think the Lord expects a little more from us.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

…in your own words, please define the term “Modernism”?

Since I did that for you, could you return the favor. Please define Ecumenism for me. What does it mean? What is it’s nature? What is it’s purpose? That sort of thing. Thanks!

You can do this after you respond to my post on modernism above.

Thanks again, and Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Unitas]

Thing is - past documents didn’t leave this room for error. They were explicit, direct, and clear. I don’t think we can say the same for the current trend. At least not with a straight face.

Why the shift in language? I honestly don’t know. It was refreshing to see the last document from the CDF though.

Well, the Church does provide much context in the sense that they still exist and they still stand - but they are for all practical purposes hidden from most folks. You’re average lay catholic don’t know such things exist, and if they know they exist they think they’ve been overturned because that is the way the majority of the Church is acting these days- even within the clergy.

Pascedi and Dominus Iesus is just as easy to find as Nostra Aetate. If they can find one then they can find the other.

In this particular case, you’re assuming this religiously indifferent fellow should unearth a 100-year old papal encyclical that he’s probably not even heard of - certainly not from the pulpit - in order to understand the VII document properly and “in context”.

Well the inverse is that you assume every document should be a standalone without any need of context.

Such documents that would include two millenia of context would be far too long to be manageable.

Sad thing is, it would have taken maybe a paragraph or two in said document to put it in this context - but it did not.

Why not? I don’t know. I wasn’t there. So it would be foolish to jump to conclusions and assume those conclusions are correct.

God leads by his own graces indeed - but for the most part, God uses human beings as instruments of this conversion and in this leading to the Truth in His Church.

Indeed.

The notion that if “we just be nice” folks will come to the Truth and convert has been proven, well, dead wrong. I’m sure many had the best of intentions here - but it ain’t a workin’. I think the Lord expects a little more from us.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

I never suggested that “we just be nice folks”.

What I’m saying is that if someone is to be converted they first must be open to such a thing. You nor I can force a conversion and God will not violate free will. God is always calling mankind to conversion, all they have to do is listen and submit. If a person will not let go of biases then that is his problem. So if a person keeps these biases then when reading these documents he will read what he wants to read instead of opening himself to the truth. No amount of context will reverse that. A person must be open to the truth first.

 

[DustinsDad]

,Pascedi and Dominus Iesus is just as easy to find as Nostra Aetate. If they can find one then they can find the other.

The fact of the matter, is that your average lay catholic is living and breathing Nostra Aetate - most aren’t living and breathing Pascendi. Dominus Iesus stands kind of in the middle I guess. Like the recent letter from the CDF, it’s good in parts but still ambigous in parts. As soft as it is - it still ruffles feathers. Imagine what a Pascendi would do!!!

,Well the inverse is that you assume every document should be a standalone without any need of context. Such documents that would include two millenia of context would be far too long to be manageable.

I disagree. Such documents, rather, would be far to direct and concise and thus be far too problematic for the ecumenical “orientation” of the Church these days.

And let me ask you something, because I don’t want to misunderstand you. Are you saying the whole purpose for the document of Nostra Aetate - the end goal of ecumenism so to speak - is conversion to the Catholic Church by those outside of Her visible bonds?

Think carefully before you answer - because in our discussion I found two documents that are very, very troubling…

(Continued below)

 

[DustinsDad]

(continued from above…)

The first is from the office/branch of the Vatican that grew out of Nostra Aete - THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR INTERRELIGIOUS DIALOGUE. Notice what the Vatican proflie on this council says about its purpose (and about Nostra Aete): A) Nature and Goals of PCID
The PCID is the central office of the Catholic Church for the promotion of interreligious dialogue in accordance with the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, in particular the declaration “Nostra Aetate”. It has the following responsabilities:

1. to promote mutual understanding, respect and collaboration between Catholics and the followers of others religious traditions;
2. to encourage the study of religions;
3. to promote the formation of persons dedicated to dialogue.

Hmmmm, no mention of conversion. And also… B) Methodology of PCID

1. Dialogue is a two-way communication. It implies speaking and listening, giving and receiving, for mutual growth and enrichment. It includes witness to one’s own faith as well as an openess to that of the other. It is not a betrayal of mission of the Church, nor is it a new method of conversion to Christianity. This has been clearly stated in the encyclical letter of Pope John Paul II “Redemptoris Missio”. This view is also developed in the two documents produced by the PCID: The Attitude of the Catholic Church towards the Followers of Other Religious Traditions: reflections on Dialogue and Mission(1984), e Dialogue and Proclamation (1991).
   This is bizzare - because it say that it’s not a betrayal of the mission of the Church (which is to convert souls to the Church for Christ), yet it is not a new method of conversion. Huh? Talk about ambiguous!

Also troubling is that it sees such exercises in “dialogue” as mutually enriching. But if the Church contains the fullness of the truth - how can it be enriched from dialoguing with false religions…any “element of truth” in them we will already have, no? Bizzare.

But not quite as bizzare as Cardinal Kasper, head of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, .Here is a man, a Cardinal, with authority over ecumenism in the Church - he IS the context - your and my lay opinion don’t really matter here. And I don’t even know where to begin with his stuff. Mind boggling. Just check out his writings on the Nature and Purpose of Ecumenical Dialogue.

Now study Pascendi and then read this stuff that has been coming from the Vatican since the Council - and ask yourselves why the faithful shouldn’t be in a state of shock. Seriously.

,I never suggested that “we just be nice folks”.

Then you should consult with Cardinal Kasper. Here is one of my favorite lines from his letter above… Thus, while Dominus Jesus certainly could and should have used less harsh and more friendly language, in substance it holds the same position which is fundamental to all ecumenical dialogue. Dialogue does not mean levelling but means recognition of the other in his or her otherness.
Good grief!

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DJim]

Impossible to do in in a few paragraphs - at least to give the topic its due treatment. It is an extremely complicated thing with many heads and many branches and many aspects. Pius warned about it as such, but you don’t want quotes so you’ll have to take my word for it

Okay. Here are bullet points that I’m gleaning from your description:

1. Modernism is extremely complicated and multi-faceted.
2. Modernism is agnostic.
3. Modernism denies objective truth.
4. Modernism rejects dogmatic definitions of truth.
5. Modernism accepts re-defining truth.
6. Modernism professes that perception of the “divine” is equal to the Divine reality itself.
7. Modernism embraces the relative validity of all religions and spiritualities.

Stopping there, you wrote:

A Catholic modernist might believe the Catholic religion to be more “valid” and more “true”, but he doesn’t discount the truth in other religions - he’ll see them as valid sense perceptions of the Divine in some “mysterious” way known only to the Divine.

Is this a way of saying that you believe that NO objective truth exists in religions other than Catholicism? Isn’t it plausible to accept that–regardless of sense perceptions–other religions contain some basic elements of objective truth, and that such acceptance is categorically different from the Modernist worldview?

Continuing with bullet points:

1. Modernism embraces religious relativism or “indifferentism.”
2. Modernists are solely fixated on this world, not the hereafter.
3. Modernism relies on ambiguity and downplaying of distinctions between groups.
4. Modernists believe all “pathways” to God are equally okay.
5. Modernism doesn’t trust miracles, or the report of them in Scripture.

13, Modernism is “fuzzy” and hard to pin down.

Are all of these fair statements of fact regarding your view of modernism?

DJim

 

[DustinsDad]

…Are all of these fair statements of fact regarding your view of modernism?

Yes your honor I think that’s pretty accurate.

All with the caveat that the modernist likely won’t admit to any of them and won’t consistantly “preach” all of them. In fact, they may even preach them and deny they’re preaching them in the same lecture/document. It’s a subtle and slippery thing this modernism.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DustinsDad]

Forgot to respond to this part…

DustinsDad: A Catholic modernist might believe the Catholic religion to be more “valid” and more “true”, but he doesn’t discount the truth in other religions - he’ll see them as valid sense perceptions of the Divine in some “mysterious” way known only to the Divine.

DJim: …Is this a way of saying that you believe that NO objective truth exists in religions other than Catholicism? Isn’t it plausible to accept that–regardless of sense perceptions–other religions contain some basic elements of objective truth

Non-catholic religions contain nothing true that is not already contained in Catholicism. As far as the pagan religions are concerned, the only objective truth they might contain in regards to religion are those elements of Natural Law they haven’t rejected or completely distorted - and these too will already be contained in Catholicism. But the pagan religions will contain nothing whatsoever of Divine Revelation. I’m sure you know the difference.

… and that such acceptance is categorically different from the Modernist worldview?

Not catagorically different - the modernist doesn’t discount the premise of “shared truths” - he builds upon it. See, even modernism has “elements of truth”, it’s what modernism does with 'em that is so dangeous. Sort of like with all false belief systems.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[DJim]

Yes your honor I think that’s pretty accurate.

All with the caveat that the modernist likely won’t admit to any of them and won’t consistantly “preach” all of them. In fact, they may even preach them and deny they’re preaching them in the same lecture/document. It’s a subtle and slippery thing this modernism.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

Great. How many of these different characteristics of modernism would you say are actually found in the documents of Vatican II under scrutiny in this thread? Can you cite them?

DJim

 

[DustinsDad]

Great. How many of these different characteristics of modernism would you say are actually found in the documents of Vatican II under scrutiny in this thread? Can you cite them?

Since you now know the characteristics - how 'bout you do that for me. I’m serious. Look at, say, Nostra Aetate* (since that seems to be the main one being discussed),* and look for some of these aspects from an objective point of view. Look for what the modernist would be comfortable with, what they would be thrilled with - and what they would cringe at. Tally 'em up for me. I’m curious too, as I’ve never done this.

By the way, going back over the list - I see you left almost the whole third part of my explanation off of your list. Why is that?

Here it is again…

A modernist is also an ecumenist extrordinare - he never ever would think of trying to get anyone to convert to anything (accept perhaps his own modernist beliefs). You know - the old, “A Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Protestant a better Protestant, a Catholic a better Catholic” line. We’ve all heard these sorts of things before - you know, we’re all on the pathyway to God, all connected, all children of God, etc so we need to just work together to build a perfect world (a modernist is solely fixated on this world - not in the world to come). But the thing is, when you look at all the different teachings you see the contradictions, that’s why modernists hate defined dogmas (once again), because they shatter the illusion of their notion of ecumenism. A “better” Catholic is by his very religious beliefs going to attempt to convert others. Same holds true for a “better” Muslim, etc. Therefore, the first order of business for the Modernist is to speak vaguely and ambiguously, so as not to offend and not to draw out the distinctions between all the varying “pathways” to God. To the modernist, these (dogmas) are all just man-made roadblocks to the true unity of all mankind and they can’t be trusted as absolute truth because that absolute truth is unobtainable due to our human limitations. They may have been useful at one time, but they’ve outlived their usefullness and must be disgarded. By the way, this aspect of modernism is also tied in with freemasonry’s belief system - but maybe I won’t go there .

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[Genesis315]

I can’t image Saint Pope Pius X saying that he “rejects nothing that is true and holy” in pagan religions.

Maybe not or maybe so, I would have to re-read some things. But his predecessor and one of his later successors did.

Leo XIII (Aeterni Patris):

“We hold that every word of wisdom, every useful thing by whomsoever discovered or planned, ought to be received with a willing and grateful mind.”

Pius XII (Evangelii Praecones)

"The Church from the beginning down to our own time has always followed this wise practice: let not the Gospel on being introduced into any new land destroy or extinguish whatever its people possess that is naturally good, just or beautiful. For the Church, when she calls people to a higher culture and a better way of life, under the inspiration of the Christian religion, does not act like one who recklessly cuts down and uproots a thriving forest. No, she grafts a good scion upon the wild stock that it may bear a crop of more delicious fruit.

This is the reason why the Catholic Church has neither scorned nor rejected the pagan philosophies. Instead, after freeing them from error and all contamination she has perfected and completed them by Christian revelation.

Thus Moses, a man of the greatest renown for his wisdom, is said to have come to the contemplation of Him, Who is, only after being trained in Egyptian lore. So later the wise Daniel is said to have been first schooled in Babylon in the wisdom of the Chaldeans, and only then to have come to know Divine Revelation."[44]

We ourselves made the following statement in the first Encyclical Letter We wrote, Summi Pontificatus: “Persevering research carried out with laborious study, on the part of her missionaries of every age, has been undertaken in order to facilitate the deeper appreciative insight into the various civilizations and to utilize their good qualities to facilitate and render more fruitful the preaching of the Gospel of Christ. Whatever there is in the native customs that is not inseparably bound up with superstition and error will always receive kindly consideration and, when possible, will be preserved intact.”

**Pius XII: (**Summi Pontificatus)

The Church hails with joy and follows with her maternal blessing every method of guidance and care which aims at a wise and orderly evolution of particular forces and tendencies having their origin in the individual character of each race, provided that they are not opposed to the duties incumbent on men from their unity of origin and common destiny.

She has repeatedly shown in her missionary enterprises that such a principle of action is the guiding star of her universal apostolate. Pioneer research and investigation, involving sacrifice, devotedness and love on the part of her missionaries of every age, have been undertaken in order to facilitate the deeper appreciative insight into the most varied civilizations and to put their spiritual values to account for a living and vital preaching of the Gospel of Christ. All that in such usages and customs is not inseparably bound up with religious errors will always be subject to kindly consideration and, when it is found possible, will be sponsored and developed.

 

[DustinsDad]

Extended reading on modernism from the Catholic Encyclopedia - for anyone who is interested…

newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm

 

[Genesis315]

Also, there is the example of St. Paul in Acts 17:23:

*"*For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you:"

and later quoting a pagan poet:

27 That they should seek God, if happily they may feel after him or find him, although he be not far from every one of us: 28 For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring.

And Pius XI, in his encyclical on the missions Rerum Ecclesiae), says the Chinese’ “although pagan in large majority have a natural inclination towards solitude, prayer, and contemplation” which prepares them for the Gospel and contempletive life.

Affirming, preserving, adapting, and taking advantage of what is good already and perfecting it in the Gospel is what successful missionaries do.

 

[Genesis315]

Extended reading on modernism from the Catholic Encyclopedia - for anyone who is interested…

newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm

To add to that, here’s a short summary from Catholic Answers I have found helpful:

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411hotm.asp