What Is Modernism?

[Dempsey1919]

I have heard many traditionalist Catholics discuss modernism within the Church. They always quote Pope St. Pius X and many claim that modernism has infiltrated the Church and is undermining or destroying the faith.

What is Modernism? And how has Modernism affected the Church?

I have tried to read the Encyclicals on this subject, but I find them quite difficult to understand. Please could someone explain the history and meaning of this philosophy. I would like to gain a basic understanding of this subject.

 

[Yours_Truly]

Here’s a short article on the subject.

Modernism if a Nutshel

Modernism, according to Pascendi, starts with the false notion that we can only believe what we can see: what is visible to the senses. If we can’t see, feel, taste, touch or smell it, then we cannot know it is there. Thus, the existence of God, the soul and the supernatural cannot be known. These things are not visible to the senses, so we can know nothing about them, nor even if they exist. This “I-don’t- know-ism” is called “Agnosticism”.

As a result of this Agnosticism, a God “out there” can never be a direct object of study. Nor can any credence be placed in the concepts of “miracles,” “supernatural” or “revelation,” since these things, according to the Modernist, can not be known. Thus the old religion of a God “out there” is to be treated as of no value.

But the modernist can see that religion exists. He sees men the world over leading moral lives in compliance with their religious creed. He sees the houses of worship, hears the religious hymns, smells the incense. This must be explained somehow. Since he has already determined that religion does not come from a God “out there” – because this is unknowable – he concludes that all religion comes from inside of man. Man has a religious sentiment, a need for religion, and constructs a God and religion to fulfill this inner need. All things divine actually come from within man and have their source from within man. This “divine- within-man” is called “Vital Immanence”.

This religious sentiment is often connected with an outstanding historic figure, for example, Jesus Christ. For the modernist, Christ is a historic figure to whom we can attribute nothing supernatural. But the believer, by “faith” subjectively transfigures Christ into a God-Man. Thus the historic Christ is transfigured by “faith,” but also disfigured by “faith,” since the “Christ of faith” is a distortion of the “Christ of history,” who, the Modernists claim, is not divine. Nor did He work miracles. The “divine elements” attributed to Jesus Christ were only what the believers – or consensus of believers – of the time attributed to Him to satisfy their inner need. For the believer, this is his “experience” of God.

Thus, all of Scripture must be re-studied “historically” if we want to separate the true “facts” of history from the “fables” that the scriptural writers imposed in the text to satisfy their “faith”. Scripture still has a place in the Modernist system, since it serves to stimulate the believer to reveal to himself the “faith” that is inside himself.

By logical extension, the modernist will hold all religions as equally valid, since every religion springs from the “Vital Immanence” within man. Every religion is a believer’s legitimate “experience of God”. A “church” is simply a group of people who adhere to the same religious feelings. So all religions are good, providing that they satisfy the yearnings of the human heart. There is no “one true Church”. No, all religions are divine, because they come from the source of all things divine, which is the religious sentiment of man. The modernist, by necessity, must be ecumenical.

What then are dogmas? “Dogmas” are simply the expression of the convictions that come from the inner needs of religious people at a given moment of history. And if the times change, and if the inner religious needs of the people change, then “dogma” must change accordingly. There is no immutable religious truth.

What then is the duty of the religious leader? According to modernism, a true religious leader is not someone who pronounces unchangeable dogmas from a God “out there”. Rather, here’s how it works. At a given moment of history, religious men will have a general sentiment of what is good or bad, true or false, moral or immoral, religious or irreligious. The duty of the religious leader is to tap into the general consensus of what men are feeling about religion and articulate it into a dogma. Years later, when the religious consensus changes, then the religious leaders must tap into the new general sentiment and adjust dogma accordingly. In the modernist system, there is no such thing as unchangeable religious truth.

In fact, change is a necessary element for the Modernist. Since change is a sign of life, and religion comes from the life of man, then religion, if is to be alive, must change if it is to be a successful expression of the evolving religious sense. This is called the “Evolution of Dogma”.

But this Evolution of Dogma must not proceed too fast.Thus in religion there must be a progressive force that forges ahead with the latest ideas, since religion must keep changing or die. But there also must be a conserving force, an authority which keeps the general religious teachings from going too far beyond its “primitive vital principle” and thus cutting the religion completely from its roots.

This is why, to give a contemporary example, a warning from a progressivist such as Cardinal Ratzinger does not trouble an ex- treme-modernist like Hans Küng. Both are serving the opposing sides of the dialectic that Modernism accepts. Küng is the ultra-progressive force, and Ratzinger is merely the conserving force at this stage of the evolutionary process. In time, the views of Küng might be acceptable to Vatican officials, but not yet, since Ratzinger’s present duty is one of conservation: to keep the continuous aggiornamento from moving too fast[1]

continue

 

[Yours_Truly]

continuation

“Tradition” for the modernist, is nothing more than the former expressions of the collective feelings of a religious group throughout the ages. But the modernist will insist on a “living tradition” that casts aside old dogmas and practices if they are not considered relevant to modern man.

Likewise “sacraments,” for the modernist, are merely the outward sense- expression of the inner religious conviction.

It is easy to see why modernists are so dangerous. They use Catholic words such as “Church,” “Christ,” “Tradition,” “Eucharist,” “Revelation,” “Scripture,” but redefine these terms in accord with their modernist system. A modernist may sound Catholic, since he employs Catholic terminology. But this is a deceptive stratagem, since he does not tell his readers or hearers that he has invested Catholic terms with new meaning. This is why Pius X called modernists “cunning”, “wily,” “mischievous,” “audacious,” and other names to describe clever criminals. This is also why Pius X said, "Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist.[2]

Ambiguity and imprecision of language are likewise modernist stratagems, since the modernist “needs room” in slippery religious jargon to work in his novel tenets. This explains why Modernists despise the scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas, whose precise language, employed by the Church for centuries, leaves them no wiggle room. Pius X rightly said, "there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method.[3] (Not surprising, Cardinal Ratzinger in his memoirs openly boasts of his boredom with Scholasticism, calling it static and “too-ready made”)[4]

The three pillars of Modernism, then, are Agnosticism, Vital Immanence and Evolution of Dogma. The rest of the modernist system flows logically from these tenets. It is a cohesive system. The most tangible aspect of modernism, visible to the average man, is that religion must change for the sake of changing times.

Thus, the modernist is all afire for updating, novelty and endless change. Continuous aggiornamento is his battle cry. The Latin Tridentine Mass cannot be considered alive for it has not changed for centuries. For the Mass to be living, it must be redesigned and modernized. The Rosary has been fifteen decades for eight centuries. How could anyone find it interesting? Thus for the Rosary to be “alive” it must be updated, so let’s add 5 more decades. Perhaps in a few years we’ll add five more. After all, change is a sign of life!

Gregorian Chant was used in churches for 1500 years. How boring, how monotonous. No one will come to church if you sing those old hymns. It all must be replaced with pop music in the sanctuary, complete with strumming guitars and throbbing rhythms: the music of “modern man”. Old baroque church interiors must be gutted and replaced by the theory-driven, shapeless art and architecture of modern man. What could be better than a church that looks like a combination of a Masonic temple and an insecticide refinery?

If dogma is to be “living” it must be subjected to the “new insights” of modern theologians. “Outdated” Catholic Tradition must be replaced by “Living Tradition”.

Thus the ideal modern Catholic religion, one that shows that it is alive, must have a New Theology, New Mass, New Code of Canon Law, New Catechism, and New Evangelization. And every one of these “new” items will contain aspects that in some way or another, contradict the traditional (“static”) Catholic teaching and practice.[5]

This new religion must also peacefully co-exist with other religions. It must have a new policy of “dialogue and proclamation”. We proclaim our own Catholic religion because we think it’s the niftiest, and perhaps others who hear us, who also think it’s nifty, will become Catholic too. But for those who do not wish to become Catholic, that’s fine. We simply dialogue with them, rather than try to convert them, since all religions are good because all religions spring from the inner religious sentiment of man. Nothing is more offensive to the modernist religion than to declare Catholicism to be the "one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation

continue…

 

[Yours_Truly]

continuation

And now that we Catholics finally understand all this, after two-thousand years of thinking we are the only true religion, then let’s have a pan-religious prayer- meeting at Assisi, let’s have a Lutheran-Catholic Accord, let’s get “smoked” in a Native American sweet- grass ritual, let’s have Jewish-Catholic dialogue, let’s kiss the Koran. And since the syllabi of Pope Pius IX and Pius X are time-bound documents that might have been “anchors” for a previous age but are no longer relevant to modern religious sentiment, let’s have a Vatican II that is a “counter-syllabus”[6] to usher in this new modernist, ecumenical orientation, the result of which will be a new springtime!

This is the insanity that Pope Pius X combated, the insanity in which we now live. Holy Saint Pius X, pray for us.

Footnotes:

1. Under Pius XII, Ratzinger’s, Congar’s and Rahner’s views were considered progressive and heretical. Now, they are falsely considered as “mainstream, conservative Catholicism”.
2. Pascendi, No. 18, from Popes Against Modernism Errors, p. 196.
3. Pascendi, No. 42, from Ibid.
4. Si Si No No, English translation, March, 1999.
5. For example, the Vatican’s 1993 Balamand Declaration says that the notion that the Schismatic Orthodox must return to the Catholic Church for salvation is an “outdated ecclesiology”, thus defying the thrice-defined dogma (ex cathedra) that “outside the Church there is no salvation”.
6. Both Cardinal Ratzinger and Yves Congar called Vatican II a “counter-syllabus” against Blessed Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors. They used the term approvingly, in that they believe modern historic conditions now called for a “counter-syllabus”. Thus they believe the false notion that what was “true” for the 19th Century is not “true” for the 20th Century".

 

[Yours_Truly]

I just brought the thread where I found the article back to the top. See “Modernism if a Nutshell”. I read just through it and it has some really good information on the subject.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Thanks for sharing that article.

Based on the above information, I can see that modernism has severely influenced the modern religious world-view.

This religious sentiment is often connected with an outstanding historic figure, for example, Jesus Christ. For the modernist, Christ is a historic figure to whom we can attribute nothing supernatural.

The many books detailing the story of the “Real” Jesus or the “Historical” Jesus probably stem from modernist ideas. Many people seem determined to reduce Jesus to the status of an enlightened but ordinary teacher whose original message was obscured by those who added superstitious myths and tales to his story.

Thus, all of Scripture must be re-studied “historically” if we want to separate the true “facts” of history from the “fables” that the scriptural writers imposed in the text to satisfy their “faith”.

We see this all of the time. There have been many instances when modern theologians have denied doctrines central to the Christian faith, such as the virgin birth and the ressurection. They attempt to remove all miraculous events from Scripture in an attempt to find the “truth.” Clearly, these individuals have accepted modernist principals according to the above article.

By logical extension, the modernist will hold all religions as equally valid, since every religion springs from the “Vital Immanence” within man. Every religion is a believer’s legitimate “experience of God”. A “church” is simply a group of people who adhere to the same religious feelings. So all religions are good, providing that they satisfy the yearnings of the human heart. There is no “one true Church”. No, all religions are divine, because they come from the source of all things divine, which is the religious sentiment of man. The modernist, by necessity, must be ecumenical.

This basically describes contemporary attitudes towards ecumenism.

Thus, the modernist is all afire for updating, novelty and endless change. Continuous aggiornamento is his battle cry. The Latin Tridentine Mass cannot be considered alive for it has not changed for centuries. For the Mass to be living, it must be redesigned and modernized. The Rosary has been fifteen decades for eight centuries. How could anyone find it interesting? Thus for the Rosary to be “alive” it must be updated, so let’s add 5 more decades. Perhaps in a few years we’ll add five more. After all, change is a sign of life!

I disagree somewhat. I believe Bugnini was probably influenced by modernist thought, and that is why he totally changed the Mass. However, the addition of the Luminous Mysteries to the Rosary is not Modernism. John Paul II added them because he had a strong devotion to the Rosary and wanted a more complete set of Mysteries. Personally, I use the new set of Mysteries because they complete the life of Christ in the prayer of the Rosary.

**The above article was a good introduction and I learned a great deal. However, I find the tone of the article troubling. The author clearly dislikes Pope Benedict XVI, and the criticism of the Catechism and the Code of Canon Law are unnecessary because they are not the fruits of modernism.

I would study Modernism more deeply but the fact that certain traditionalists label everything they dislike “modernism” really puts me off. I refuse to believe that the Church has been infested by Modernism. Where is the proof to suggest that Modernism has attacked the faith?

Why are Traditionalist Catholics the only ones who still talk about Modernism? The rest of the Church seems to have forgotten all about this threat to the faith.

**

 

[Dempsey1919]

In fact, change is a necessary element for the Modernist. Since change is a sign of life, and religion comes from the life of man, then religion, if is to be alive, must change if it is to be a successful expression of the evolving religious sense. This is called the “Evolution of Dogma”.

We hold that doctrines can never change. However, the Church teaches that doctrines can and do develop as our understanding of the Sacred Deposit of Faith changes through time. ** Do you think that modernists attempt to conceal Evolution of Dogma by claiming that the changes were actually legitimate doctrinal developments?**

 

[Yours_Truly]

We hold that doctrines can never change. However, the Church teaches that doctrines can and do develop as our understanding of the Sacred Deposit of Faith changes through time. ** Do you think that modernists attempt to conceal Evolution of Dogma** by claiming that the changes were actually legitimate doctrinal developments?

ABSOLUTELY!

 

[Dempsey1919]

ABSOLUTELY!

How do they do this and have there been any documented attempts, or even successes?

 

[tuviskazinai]

I think that the first half of the article cited above does an excellent job of identifying the kind of philosophical “modernism” that the Church has opposed since the beginning of the twentieth century. (I do question some of the assumptions contained in the second half of the article – such as the idea that inter-religious dialogue is a malicious consequence of modernism, or the idea that Pope Benedict is wrong in calling Vatican II a “counter-Syllabus of Errors” – but that’s not the point of my post.)

I would just like to point out that the article treats only one sense of the word “modernism.” Other philosophers have used the word completely differently. (Just about every philosopher from Kant to Heidegger has been called a “modernist” in his own turn.) Among other usages in other fields and contexts, the word is also employed to refer to a number of developments that occurred in the arts – music, painting, etc. – in the twentieth century. For instance, Adorno called “modern” music that which, after such horrific contemporary events as the Holocaust, is fragmented, dissonant, and broken-sounding, so as to represent the traumatized state of the twentieth-century world. “Modern” painting, like Rothko’s, was meant to forgo the scientific techniques of classical painting (such as perspective) and to experiment with the flatness of the canvas and the possibilities of figural abstraction in depicting the inner, spiritual state of mankind.

I say this lest anyone automatically assumes that a “modernist artist” is an atheist or a relativist or something perfidious like that. Some modernists in the arts – like Marc Chagall (Jewish) in painting or Messiaen (Catholic) in music – were devoutly religious, and their works are found in churches and church services around the world.

Seen from this point of view, modernism can actually mean almost the opposite of “we only believe what we can see” – it refers to a way of thinking or of expression that is rooted in our internal, subjective experiences. Many people hear the word “subjective” and assume that it means “relativist.” Not so. Karl Rahner is often described as a “modernist theologian,” because rather than focusing on logical proofs for God’s existence, he looks at man’s inner natural longing for God and talks about man’s transcendent personal experience of Christ. This didn’t stop Rahner from being a disciple of Thomas Aquinas; modernism for him was not an opposing system, but just a question of approach or of point of view.

I suppose one could argue that this sort of modernism also leads to theological mistakes. All the same, we should be clear about the different meanings of “modernism” before we start critiquing it / them.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Dempsey1919]

This thread deals with a theological viewpoint prevalent in Roman Catholicism known as Modernism. This form of “Modernism” was dealt with and defined primarily by Pope St. Pius X who proclaimed it to be the sythesis of all heresies. Although there are other uses for the term, we are dealing only with the theological Modernism that was deemed heretical by the Church.

 

[tuviskazinai]

This thread deals with a theological viewpoint prevalent in Roman Catholicism known as Modernism. This form of “Modernism” was dealt with and defined primarily by Pope St. Pius X who proclaimed it to be the sythesis of all heresies. Although there are other uses for the term, we are dealing only with the theological Modernism that was deemed heretical by the Church.

I understand. You are right.

I guess my point should have been that “modernism” has simply become more complicated since Pope Pius defined it the way he did, and we need to keep ourselves up-to-date. A discussion of these other forms of modernism is not irrelevant, because we need to be sure we are talking about the same thing. And I don’t believe that a discussion of aesthetics is completely separate from a discussion of theological ways of articulating human experience…especially since one of the theological events we are talking about is Vatican II, a great deal of which was devoted to the aesthetic dimensions of the liturgy.

The main point of my original post should have been that “subjectivity” can now be viewed as meaning something different from mere “relativism.” I’m not sure this was the case in Pope Pius’s language 100 years ago. If Vatican II is “modernizing” in some ways, it may be in the sense that it is drawing upon this other sense of modernism. For instance, Vatican II changed the language of the liturgy because by using the vernacular, it thought it could appeal to people’s subjective experiences within a given country. It did not do so for any reason having to do with the antiquated definition of modernism as “believing only what is seen” – that is, it privileged subjectivity without ever implying relativism.

Or take inter-religious dialogue. An openness to the subjective human experiences of Jews, for instance, has helped us to overcome cold, intellectual classifications which evaluated them as little more than imperfections that fall short of a desired quality (namely, belief in Christ). I would argue that this once again privileges subjectivity without ever implying relativism; the Church continues to teach that Christ is the only way to the Father, but if we can listen to Jews and to other non-Christians, then maybe we can see the ways in which Christ is working in them even if they haven’t explicitly professed the faith.

Of course, other people might feel differently on these matters, and that’s fine. We can talk about our differences. But I just want to say that in reflecting on my original post, my main concern is that we understand the complexity of the terms involved so that people don’t talk past each other. Many Traditionalist Catholics take “modernism” to refer to “relativism,” whereas other Catholics take it to refer to an attentiveness to subjectivity which *doesn’t *imply relativism. At least, that’s how I take it, and the reasons I have for liking Vatican II seem to me to be similar to those of many other defenders of Vatican II (including Pope Benedict, who of course is famous for his condemnation of “the dictatorship of relativism”!).

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Dempsey1919]

Vatican II changed the language of the liturgy because by using the vernacular, it thought it could appeal to people’s subjective experiences within a given country.

Vatican II did not advocate Mass in the vernacular. In fact, it stated that the use of Latin was to be retained. The Mass of Paul VI is not the Mass that was envisioned by the Council Fathers of Vatican II. It is the vision of Bugnini and his committees, and is not a fulfillment of the Vatican II directives for the Liturgy.

 

[tuviskazinai]

Vatican II did not advocate Mass in the vernacular. In fact, it stated that the use of Latin was to be retained. The Mass of Paul VI is not the Mass that was envisioned by the Council Fathers of Vatican II. It is the vision of Bugnini and his committees, and is not a fulfillment of the Vatican II directives for the Liturgy.

Thanks for the correction. I don’t know much about Bugnini, but I would assume that the argument I suggested for the change to the vernacular is still pertinent, whether it applies to the Council or to Bugnini, as an example of a certain “modern” way of thinking about the Mass (for good or for ill), such as I have defined modernism.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Kook]

How do they do this and have there been any documented attempts, or even successes?

Many will say that Dignitatis Humanae is such an example. Fr. Murray, I think, said that it was a reversal of prior Church teaching. Since he pretty much wrote it, his opinion carries some weight.

 

[weepixie71]

it does seem catholics are described one of two ways: a traditionalist or a modernist.

a modernist catholic likes progression and change is good so long as it doesnt interfere with the consecration itself or if they feel it would not be offensive to God.

a traditionalist likes consistency. they recognize every action and symbolisms as a reminder of Christ’s love and to do away with any of them is very upsetting. it may even cause a tick or two .

in most cases, they are both good catholics, just different opinions and styles. either one i believe can be taken to far an extreme.

 

[Ottaviani]

it does seem catholics are described one of two ways: a traditionalist or a modernist.

a modernist catholic likes progression and change is good so long as it doesnt interfere with the consecration itself or if they feel it would not be offensive to God.

a traditionalist likes consistency. they recognize every action and symbolisms as a reminder of Christ’s love and to do away with any of them is very upsetting. it may even cause a tick or two .

in most cases, they are both good catholics, just different opinions and styles. either one i believe can be taken to far an extreme.

Why is it then that the Church had, until sometime in the 60’s employed Pope Pius X’s “oath against modernism” which was sworn by every ordained person in front of an open tabernacle? Seems to me the two aren’t so easily reconciled?

 

[pseudoanselm]

[ABSOLUTELY!]

Yours Truly, so you’re saying that before Vatican II the Church NEVER “developed” doctrine as opposed to “changing” it in the modernist sense?

So before Vatian II nothing EVER changed, everything was absolutely static in doctrine and practice.

There was NO increase or progress in understanding revelation over 1960 years, whatsoever.

If you think that, you’re totally wrong. Here’s just two few examples of which there are many more I’m sure.

1. Aquinas was originally condemned by many for his codification of Catholic faith by the use of Aristotle. Look at the Condemnations of 1277, where a synod of bishops condemned him.

What Aqunias did in explaining Catholicism in Aristotilian terms instead of Platonic terms was downright revolutionary in the eyes of many in the Church.

This paradigm shift that Aquinas caused shows that the Church is NOT bound to any one philosophical system in explaining Catholic faith. Aristotle and Plato are great but not the only game in town. Aquinas proved this.

1. No Salvation Outside the Church

This doctrine developed. When the New World was discovered by Columbus and other exploreres, the Church became more aware of indigenous peoples who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel.

Prior to the discovery of the New World, the theology of the Council of Florence predominated, which basically taught that all non-Catholics without exception went to Hell.

But, with the NEW realities discovered, NEW theological reflection on this doctrine became necessary. In the Council of Trent, we see the beginning of a theology of “Baptism by Desire” which was much less developed before the discovery of the New World.

I’m not a modernist, proclaiming the lunacy of constant change.

Nor am I a traditionalist, proclaiming the lunacy of absolute changlessness.

I’m Catholic. What’s unchangable doesn’t change. What’s changeable does change.

 

[Yours_Truly]

Yours Truly, so you’re saying that before Vatican II the Church NEVER “developed” doctrine as opposed to “changing” it in the modernist sense?

So before Vatian II nothing EVER changed, everything was absolutely static in doctrine and practice.

There was NO increase or progress in understanding revelation over 1960 years, whatsoever.

Increase in understanding of doctrine is fine and does occur with time, but never a change in understanding.

So, for example, Christians have always believed that the Eucharist is Jesus Christ. The understanding developed to the point where the Church distinguishes between the substance, which is the body, blood, soul and Divinity of Jesus, and the “accidents” which are of bread and wine. The understanding increased, but the doctrine remained the same: What appears to be bread is not bread, but the Body of Christ. This teaching became more clearly understood without any change at all.

An example of an evolution of doctrine would be the teaching that the Eucharist is NOT the Body of Christ, but only a symbol. This would not be a development in the understanding of what had always been taught, but an “evolution” from one understanding to another.

If you think that, you’re totally wrong. Here’s just two few examples of which there are many more I’m sure.

1. Aquinas was originally condemned by many for his codification of Catholic faith by the use of Aristotle. Look at the Condemnations of 1277, where a synod of bishops condemned him. What Aquinas did in explaining Catholicism in Aristotelian terms instead of Platonic terms was downright revolutionary in the eyes of many in the Church.

This is totally different. There was no change in doctrine. It was just a different philosophy, which is fine. This or that philosophy is not a part of the deposit of faith. St. Augustine’s philosophy was that of Plato, St. Thomas’ that of Aristotle, but both believed the same doctrines.

This paradigm shift that Aquinas caused shows that the Church is NOT bound to any one philosophical system in explaining Catholic faith. Aristotle and Plato are great but not the only game in town. Aquinas proved this.

No one disagrees with that.

1. No Salvation Outside the Church

This doctrine developed. When the New World was discovered by Columbus and other exploreres, the Church became more aware of indigenous peoples who never had the opportunity to hear the gospel. Prior to the discovery of the New World, the theology of the Council of Florence predominated, which basically taught that all non-Catholics without exception went to Hell.

That’s funny because well before the New World was discovered St. Thomas addressed this very point - that is, what will happen to a person who is properly disposed for the truth, but who is invincibly ignorant of it. This was addressed and answered by St. Thomas.

And what the Council of Florence taught is a DOGMA. What it taught is just as infallibly true today as it was in 1441.

We just had some long detailed discussions on this topic in another thread. I really don’t feel like going over everything again. If you are interested in reading that thread, let me know and I’ll post the link.

But, with the NEW realities discovered, NEW theological reflection on this doctrine became necessary. In the Council of Trent, we see the beginning of a theology of “Baptism by Desire”

Sorry, but Baptism of Desire was taught by St. Augustine (4th century) and St. Thomas (13th century). It didn’t begin with Trent.

I’m not a modernist, proclaiming the lunacy of constant change.

Nor am I a traditionalist, proclaiming the lunacy of absolute changlessness.

With respect to the unchangeableness of Catholic doctrine (such as the earlier mentioned teaching from the Council of Florence), this is what Traditional Catholics believe.

Vatican I:** For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated**.

"Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

"May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: **but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding **

In accord with the infallible teaching of Vatican I, Traditional Catholics are all for an increase in understanding of doctrine, as long as the increase in understanding of the doctrine is “in the same sense and same understanding”. Your free to consider that “lunacy” if you chose.

I’m Catholic. What’s unchangeable doesn’t change. What’s changeable does change.

And what is unchangeable is Catholic Dogma, such as was declared at the Council of Florence. Doctrine does not change; and if anyone claims that, given an advance of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood: let him be anathema.

Vatican I: “If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema”.

 

[weepixie71]

Why is it then that the Church had, until sometime in the 60’s employed Pope Pius X’s “oath against modernism” which was sworn by every ordained person in front of an open tabernacle? Seems to me the two aren’t so easily reconciled?

just sounds like to me it didnt work