L
lucybeebee
Guest
Did Vatican II roll back the liturgical and priestly reforms enacted by St. Pius X? Why isn’t Modernism mentioned anymore?
- Status
O
otjm
Guest
Modernism is mentioned all through these threads, and occasionally elsewhere in the Catholic press. Many people cannot define Modernism with enough specificity to be able to tell an observer if something is actually consistent with Modernism, and if so, exactly why. It is too often used as the “boogey man in the closet” for anything and everything that some people don’t like.
Modernism is more associated with issues and ideas that arose in the late 1800’s, and spread gradually to Catholics; there were several prominent Catholic theologians who were excommunicated (one being Alfred Loisy; there was an Irish priest who was also well known, who’s name escapes me). It was primarily active within theologians in Europe.
Given that most of the active issues were in the late 1800’s and the early part of the 1900’s, part of the reason that not much is made about Modernism, is that there have been a number of other issues and “isms” that have occured since. But since within some groups it is popular to paint with a broad paintbrush, issues that have little or nothing to do with Modernism, but are the product of other philosophical trends and thoughts thus get bunched up under the supposedly broad umbrella of Modernism when they really have nothing to do with it.
For example, within the field of ethics - a philosophical field that is somewhat parallel to the field of morality in theology, took a strong turn in the 1960’s because of Situational Ethics, proposed by Joseph Fletcher (and others, e.g. Emil Brunner, Reinhold Neibur & John A. T. Robinson). It really has nothing to do with Modernism, but gets painted with that brush because Modernism is so vaguely defined.
We are well into other issues, including Post Modernism, which includes its own set of issues.
It helps to understand what actually was being proposed, and what was being objected to by the Church 100 years ago. However, presupposing that Modernism is the vital underlying heresy driving all the problems of the Church today is simply ignoring the fact that much of what we have today in terms of problems really source from other issues. Crying Modernism at every wrong or perceived wrong does nothing to assist one in understanding what the correct postion on the matter should be, or why the matter is wrong as proposed.
A short answer as to what Modernism proposed was that the theologians who were following this train of thought wanted to reshape doctrine in light of advances in science and philosophy.
Modernism is more associated with issues and ideas that arose in the late 1800’s, and spread gradually to Catholics; there were several prominent Catholic theologians who were excommunicated (one being Alfred Loisy; there was an Irish priest who was also well known, who’s name escapes me). It was primarily active within theologians in Europe.
Given that most of the active issues were in the late 1800’s and the early part of the 1900’s, part of the reason that not much is made about Modernism, is that there have been a number of other issues and “isms” that have occured since. But since within some groups it is popular to paint with a broad paintbrush, issues that have little or nothing to do with Modernism, but are the product of other philosophical trends and thoughts thus get bunched up under the supposedly broad umbrella of Modernism when they really have nothing to do with it.
For example, within the field of ethics - a philosophical field that is somewhat parallel to the field of morality in theology, took a strong turn in the 1960’s because of Situational Ethics, proposed by Joseph Fletcher (and others, e.g. Emil Brunner, Reinhold Neibur & John A. T. Robinson). It really has nothing to do with Modernism, but gets painted with that brush because Modernism is so vaguely defined.
We are well into other issues, including Post Modernism, which includes its own set of issues.
It helps to understand what actually was being proposed, and what was being objected to by the Church 100 years ago. However, presupposing that Modernism is the vital underlying heresy driving all the problems of the Church today is simply ignoring the fact that much of what we have today in terms of problems really source from other issues. Crying Modernism at every wrong or perceived wrong does nothing to assist one in understanding what the correct postion on the matter should be, or why the matter is wrong as proposed.
A short answer as to what Modernism proposed was that the theologians who were following this train of thought wanted to reshape doctrine in light of advances in science and philosophy.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Yes, and this train of thought cascaded into much of the problems we have today. Much of the deemphasis in what is traditionally considered sacred or inspired has strong roots in Modernism because Modernism downplayed and even trivialized such things as miracles and Divine Inspiration of Scriptures and such.
lucybeebee, here are a few examples of some concepts that the Church condemned under the umbrella of Modernism:
CONDEMNED: 11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.
CONDEMNED: 12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete [interpreter] must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.
CONDEMNED: 14. In many narrations the Evangelists recorded, not so much things that are true, as things which, even though false, they judged to be more profitable for their readers.
CONDEMNED: 27. The divinity of Jesus Christ is not proved from the Gospels. It is a dogma which the Christian conscience has derived from the notion of the Messias.
CONDEMNED: 36. The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstrated nor demonstrable) which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other facts.
CONDEMNED:64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.
M
Markstorm
Guest
Indeed. While the word “modernism” and “postmodernism” are hard to pin down precisely, Pope St. Pius X’s encyclical makes it crystal clear what aspects are condemned by the Church.
P
pnewton
Guest
otjm -
Excellent description of the issue. The 19th century modernism took roots and has its followers into the twentieth century, but it is not the same animal condemned in the 19th. When I studied theology in the 70’s and 80’s it was nothing more than a historical quirk that had few followers. Yet some of its precepts endured. This was in a Baptist, not Catholic University, by the way. It hit everywhere.
Excellent description of the issue. The 19th century modernism took roots and has its followers into the twentieth century, but it is not the same animal condemned in the 19th. When I studied theology in the 70’s and 80’s it was nothing more than a historical quirk that had few followers. Yet some of its precepts endured. This was in a Baptist, not Catholic University, by the way. It hit everywhere.
O
otjm
Guest
While these are attitudes and "points of view’ , or “points of departure” in doing Scriptural research, they are not Modernism, but rather, the results of Modernism on the thinking of some Scriptural scholars. That is, Modernism was what lay under these.
The issue is further made difficult, as it (the whole issue of Modernism) became the rallying cry for those who wanted nothing to do with any new form of Scripture scholarship, and used it (Modernism) as a bludgeon to seek condemnation of anything and everything they did not understand. Note, I am speaking in particular of those in the Vatican who went after anyone they considered tainted. The history of those silenced after Pius X is not one of the most stellar points in the history of the Church, as was seen by the later recognition that the silencing was wrong, when the scholars were later rehabilitated.
Again, my point is not that Modernism was no big thing; it was radically wrong. My point is that it has been used ever since as a cudgel by those who often don’t like something or someone and use it (the charge of Modernism)to indicate that the position is heretical or borderline so, when in fact it is legitimate within Church teachings or decisions.
We all should rightly condemn that which strays from Church teaching. We also should be more than a little wary of condemning that which the Church does not condemn.
G
Genesis315
Guest
John Paul II mentioned it in “Fides et Ratio.”
G
Genesis315
Guest
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Genesis315, Thank you.
- Status