Pope Saint Pius X Oath Against Modernism

  • Thread starter Thread starter TraditionalCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One defination

**

Modernism (Roman Catholicism)

​

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Descent_of_the_Modernists%2C_E._J._Pace%2C_Christian_Cartoons%2C_1922.jpg/400px-Descent_of_the_Modernists%2C_E._J._Pace%2C_Christian_Cartoons%2C_1922.jpg en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png
Illustration depicting Modernism as the descent from Christianity to atheism. “The Descent of the Modernists”, by E. J. Pace, Christian Cartoons, 1922; republished in Seven Questions in Dispute, by William Jennings Bryan, 1924.
Modernism describes a broad body of theological views, including the belief that the Church and Catholic dogma are mere human institutions and as such their nature may radically change over time.[1] The term was used by Pope Pius X, chiefly in reference to the teachings of Alfred Loisy and George Tyrell. “Modernists” generally did not use this label in describing themselves, nor did they necessarily see themselves as a unified group.
In his encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis of 1907, Pius X declared that Modernism was not only heretical, but even condemned it as “the synthesis of all heresies”,[2] because it undermined defined Catholic doctrine in a fundamental way, denying the idea of objective unchanging truth and authoritative teaching. In his decree Lamentabili Sane, Pius X presented 65 condemned and proscribed errors of Modernism.
The Modernist crisis took place chiefly in French and British intellectual Catholic circles, to a lesser extent in Italy, and virtually nowhere else.[3] The Modernist movement in Catholicism was influenced by certain Protestant theologians and clergy, starting with the Tübingen school in the mid-19th century. Some, however, such as George Tyrell, disagreed strongly with this analogy; Tyrell saw himself as loyal to the unity of the Church, and disliked liberal Protestantism (Hales 1958). According to Church critics and dissidents of both past and present, in some respects the Church appeared to be reacting to cultural themes that had arisen with Renaissance humanism and had informed the Enlightenment of the 18th century.
 
KathleenElsie said:
A question. Could Vatican II have been the result of the oath? Could it have been rebellion of some to the traditional and desire of modernism?
Click to expand...
No. Modernism (and Liberalism before it) caused the Church to be very strict as to doctrinal development–basically halting it all for a time. About the pontificate of Pius XII, the Church began to resume her development as the Holy Spirit had always guided her.

Pius XII, however, ran into people who, due to their fears of modernism, would have none of it. We see this in Pius XII’s encyclical on Biblical studies (and other places). The primary error of the Modernists was in relation to Scripture. Because of this, Scripture studies had become stagnant, due to the fear of Modernism itself, but also the fear of being accused of being a Modernist. This was an unfortunate side-effect of the necessary medicine against Modernism.

Pius XII had to warn us, “all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected.” Sadly, to this day, many retained this hermeneutic of suspicion.

Likewise, Vatican II itself, is anti-Modernist.* Dei Verbum* is the document that would deal with the topics that Moderism attacked–this document is the least positive-sounding of all the documents because that fear of modernism was still lingering.

Now, surely as the reigns were loosened to allow the authentic “progress of the Sacred Doctrine” (as Pius XII calls it) to blossom again, there were theologians who acted like a kid turning 21. Instead of engaging in healthy develpment, they went on a heretical binge. But this was to be expected for those familiar with history. We can read of the results of even the Councils that are now seen as foundations of our faith–after a couple of them, St. Basil complained that all councils ever do is lead to “shocking disorder and confusion” and “endless chatter within the Church.” Of course, you can read my signature too for another example.
 
More information:
Forms of Modernism in the Church
Modernism in the Catholic Church might be described under the following broad headings:
  • Rationalist approach to the Bible. The rationalism that was an aspect of Modernism took a skeptical view of miracles and the historicity of biblical narratives. Furthermore, this approach attempted to evalute the meaning of the Bible by focusing on the text alone and ignoring what the Church fathers and others have historically taught about it. This way of looking at the Bible became quite popular in the Protestant churches and found its way into Catholic churches. It was an offshoot of the concept of sola scriptura, which asserts that an individual can learn all that is necessary regarding religion just by reading the Bible.
Click to expand...
  • Secularism and other Enlightenment ideals. The ideal of secularism can be briefly summarised as holding that the best course of action in politics and other civic fields is that which flows from disparate groups’ and religions’ common understanding of the “good”. By implication, Church and State should be separated, and the laws of the state should generally only cover the “common ground” of beliefs between the various religious groups that might be present — for example the prohibition of murder, etc. From the secularists’ point of view, it was possible to distinguish between political ideas and structures that were religious and those that were not. Catholic theologians in the mainstream argued that such a distinction was not possible, that all aspects of society had to be organized with the final goal of heaven in mind. This was a direct counter to the thread of Humanism that had been in the forefront of intellectual thought since the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. The roots of secularism they traced to those English philosophers who attempted to create a “universal religion” based on the “common denominator” of all other religions; it was largely spread through the secret societies of the Enlightenment, including the Freemasons, the Illuminati, and the Carbonari, and its greatest threat, in the writings of this school, was the spectre of Democracy.
Click to expand...
  • Modern philosophical systems. Philosophers such as Kant and Henri Bergson inspired the mainstream of Modernist thought. One of the main currents was the attempt to synthesize the vocabularies/epistemologies/metaphysics and other features of certain modern systems of philosophy with Catholicism, in much the same way the Scholastics earlier attempted to synthesize Platonic and Aristotlean philosophy with Catholicism, although Thomas Aquinas himself counted Aristotle as one of his chief influences.
    The combination of these three currents usually led to other conclusions which were common in various streams of progressive thinking that was characterized as Modernism:
Click to expand...
 
And more:
The combination of these three currents usually led to other conclusions which were common in various streams of progressive thinking that was characterized as Modernism:
  • That religion is primarily a matter of irrational emotions. As more dispassionate and detailed studies of history appeared, a sense of historicism suggested that ideas are generally so conditioned by the age in which that they are expressed; thus modernists generally believed that most dogmas or teachings of the Church were novelties which arose because of specific historical circumstances throughout the history of the Church. Rationalism and textual criticism downplayed the possible role of the miraculous, and the philosophical systems in vogue at the time taught that the existence of God and other things could never be known (see Agnosticism). Theology, formerly the “queen of the sciences” was dethroned. (Wilkinson 2002) So it was argued that religion must be primarily caused and centered on the feelings of believers. This bolsters the claims of secularism in weakening any position that supported favoring one religion over the other in the state (since if there isn’t a very scientific and reasonable assumption that one’s religion is right, it would be a much safer route to organize society based on the assumption that no particular religion is right).
Click to expand...
 
Genesis315 said:
Likewise, Vatican II itself, is anti-Modernist.* Dei Verbum* is the document that would deal with the topics that Moderism attacked–this document is the least positive-sounding of all the documents because that fear of modernism was still lingering.
Click to expand...
That is the most humorous thing I have ever heard. Here we have a church in ruins, embracing ecumenism with all its might, loss of vocations, lost and destroyed churches, a laity of 70% not believing in the Real Presence, church attendance down, clown masses, halloween masses, communion in the hand, sacrament of confession all but gone, liturgical dances, rock music in church, [edited by Moderator], poorly catechized youth, a pope who prays in the blue mosque, bishops who call the shots and threaten the pope, and you say that Vatican II itself is anti-Modernist? What’s up with that?
 
When I read what is presented for a definition, then the loosely-applied term “modernist” (or liberal) is a nasty label that gives some people a bit of satisfaction, for they believe they are defending tradition (small t) whenever it is applied to others who have opposing, but NOT purely “modernist” views. Somehow I had the feeling all along that it was used incorrectly and indiscriminately.

One who attends the Pauline liturgy, professes and believes in all teachings of the Creed, Divine Revelation in scripture, obeys the Magisterium, lives his faith, but does not attend a TLM is a CATHOLIC, not a modernist. 👍 Thankyou.
 
Joysong said:
When I read what is presented for a definition, then the loosely-applied term “modernist” (or liberal) is a nasty label that gives some people a bit of satisfaction, for they believe they are defending tradition (small t) whenever it is applied to others who have opposing, but NOT purely “modernist” views. Somehow I had the feeling all along that it was used incorrectly and indiscriminately.

One who attends the Pauline liturgy, professes and believes in all teachings of the Creed, Divine Revelation in scripture, obeys the Magisterium, lives his faith, but does not attend a TLM is a CATHOLIC, not a modernist. 👍 Thankyou.
Click to expand...
Boy, sometimes the truth really hurts.
 
Joysong said:
When I read what is presented for a definition, then the loosely-applied term “modernist” (or liberal) is a nasty label that gives some people a bit of satisfaction, for they believe they are defending tradition (small t) whenever it is applied to others who have opposing, but NOT purely “modernist” views. Somehow I had the feeling all along that it was used incorrectly and indiscriminately.
Click to expand...
Kind of like how the term “more Catholic than the Pope” is used incorrectly and indiscriminately, as well as ad nauseum?
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Except you haven’t exactly told it…the truth, that is, as has been pointed out by Joysong and Genesis.
Click to expand...
The modern neo-catholics are so used to changing the truth to fit their idea of what it should mean that they wouldn’t recognize it if it bit them in the rear.

To the conciliarists, everything that is wrong, is now right, and everything that is right, is now wrong. Talk about diabolical disorientation.
 
labernadette said:
The modern neo-catholics are so used to changing the truth to fit their idea of what it should mean that they wouldn’t recognize it if it bit them in the rear.

To the conciliarists, everything that is wrong, is now right, and everything that is right, is now wrong. Talk about diabolical disorientation.
Click to expand...
Well, I can’t speak for modern neo-catholics, since I’m not one, nor would I attempt to address the extremely broad and general indictment of “conciliarists” (old Archbishop Lefebreve was there and agreed to quite a few of the documents, I seem to recall). I was only commenting on the tendency of some who call themselves “traditionalists” (which is why I put the term in quotation marks) to be terribly selective in their quotations. I’m perfectly willing to point out (glad to do so, in fact, since I’m not one of those either) that liberals are just as selective, esp. about Vatican II.
 
labernadette said:
That is the most humorous thing I have ever heard. Here we have a church in ruins, embracing ecumenism with all its might, loss of vocations, lost and destroyed churches, a laity of 70% not believing in the Real Presence, church attendance down, clown masses, halloween masses, communion in the hand, sacrament of confession all but gone, liturgical dances, rock music in church, [edited by Moderator], poorly catechized youth, a pope who prays in the blue mosque, bishops who call the shots and threaten the pope, and you say that Vatican II itself is anti-Modernist? What’s up with that?
Click to expand...
None of those things are part the heresy of Modernism. Likewise, none of those things are mandated by Vatican II. Do you know what Modernism is? Modernism has to do with the source of revealed truths–or more accurately, the very existence of authentic Divine revelation–that’s why it is the synthesis of all heresies–it rejects the very foundation of religion, that is revelation from God–read Dei Verbum and see what it deals with :). Likewise, all post-Concilliar popes have also upheld the orthodox undertsanding of revelation.🙂
 
JKirkLVNV said:
Well, I can’t speak for modern neo-catholics, since I’m not one, nor would I attempt to address the extremely broad and general indictment of “conciliarists” (old Archbishop Lefebreve was there and agreed to quite a few of the documents, I seem to recall). I was only commenting on the tendency of some who call themselves “traditionalists” (which is why I put the term in quotation marks) to be terribly selective in their quotations. I’m perfectly willing to point out (glad to do so, in fact, since I’m not one of those either) that liberals are just as selective, esp. about Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Liberalism is a sin.

liberalismisasin.com/
 
labernadette said:
The modern neo-catholics are so used to changing the truth to fit their idea of what it should mean that they wouldn’t recognize it if it bit them in the rear.

To the conciliarists, everything that is wrong, is now right, and everything that is right, is now wrong. Talk about diabolical disorientation.
Click to expand...
I believe everything that was once right, is still right. And everything that was once wrong, is still wrong.

You sound like me at one point. I bought into all the arguments you probably read from sites like the one that has the transcript of Fr. Sarda y Salvany’s famous work. If you read sites like that (the book is fine, but the rest of the site–not so much) your soul will be poisoned by bitter zeal and intellectual desolation. Trust me, I’ve been there. But when I finally immersed myself in the Tradition of the Church–the writings of all 33 Doctors, hundreds of papal documents, the 21 Ecumenical Councils, the writings of the Fathers–and most of all, the history surrounding it all–I saw that many who claim to uphold Tradition, are very under-informed.

Every Council is followed by times of upheaval, confusion and increased heresy–that doesn’t make them bad or heretical. There have also been Popes and Councils that adopted policies that didn’t help matter–even though their intentions were good. That doesn’t make such policies inherently evil.

When you rid yourself of the hermeneutic of suspicion, condemned by Pius XII, and adopt the traditional Catholic attitude, you’ll come around too. 🙂 Traditionally, as Pope Pius XII explains in Humani Generis, the role of a theologian was to show how current magisterial teaching was contained in Scripture and Tradition. Unfortunately, certain traditionalist individuals do everything in their power to show the opposite–this is not what traditional Catholics have done–this is what non-Chalcedonians, Old Catholics, and the like do. 😦 Even the Scriptures can be hard to understand and can be twisted to our destruction, let’s not do the same with Tradition.
 
Genesis315 said:
I

Every Council is followed by times of upheaval, confusion and increased heresy–that doesn’t make them bad or heretical. There have also been Popes and Councils that adopted policies that didn’t help matter–even though their intentions were good. That doesn’t make such policies inherently evil.
Click to expand...
You are trying to convince the wrong person. And it will never work. That statement above is self-condemning and admits to heresy and chaos since Vatican II. Blind obedience is just not my thing. You know you can sing- song and twist and manipulate the truth all you want, it is a characteristic of the modern mind, to change truths to fit the agenda, so I am not surprised. What does surprise me however, is the cult-like presence here on this forum. The false front put up here is quite transparent, but then I am not surprised since you all are under the spell of one Jimmy Akins. By the way, isn’t he a former Protestant? He certainly is no priest or theologian. And furthermore, everyone runs to everyone else’s aid in bashing tradition, bashing Archbishop LeFebvre, bashing the SSPX. It is so very clear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top