What is modernism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leonhard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Leonhard

Guest
I’ve seen a lot Catholics, whether Vatican or Traditionally bendt, and Sedevacantists throw around the term Modernism quite a lot.

I only have the vaguest notion of what it means. ‘Modernism = Bad New Stuff’

Having read a bit of Pope St Pius X’s writings, it seems to involve a movement that robbed the substance of the Catholic Faith by introducing subtle changes in the meaning of words. He called it in the synthesis of all heresies, but I was left short of examples.

All I know is that its really bad, and Traditionalists see it everywhere, but I have little idea of what exactly it is.

Can anyone give me a specific guide? It has to be better than “Anything past 1930 can safely be regarded as modernist, whatever it is.”

And what’s the difference between Modernism and Neo-Modernism (I couldn’t find the latter in any popes writings).

Can you give me some examples and helpful clarification?
 
The best way to find out is to read Pascendi Dominici Gregis (On the Doctrine of the Modernists) by St. Pope Pius X. It explains it all. I obtained my copy from EWTN’s document library. I’ll bet it is still there. Take a look. You won’t regret it.

Glenda
 
Here are two articles that may help explain a rather complex subject:
New Advent: Modernism
Wikipedia:Modernism Roman Catholic

After reading these two articles all I can say is that modernism is an infatuation with what is new and a rejection of what is old. Probably a simplistic explanation. Someone more knowledgeable can fill in the details. 🙂
 
P.S. There used to be an Oath Against Modernism that every one had to swear to and sign. It was eliminated.

Glenda
 
My rough take is that modernism is the idea that scientific methods can be applied to religion, e.g., applying the methods of secular textual criticism to the Bible.
 
tomgosse said:
Here are two articles that may help explain a rather complex subject:
New Advent: Modernism
Click to expand...
… from which we get this rather telling quote:

A full definition of modernism would be rather difficult.

I think the last definition (just Lurking) is probably the best, as far as the error condemned by St Pius is concerned. Unfortunately, there are as many perceptual definitions as there are people.
 
Leonhard said:
I’ve seen a lot Catholics, whether Vatican or Traditionally bendt, and Sedevacantists throw around the term Modernism quite a lot.

I only have the vaguest notion of what it means. ‘Modernism = Bad New Stuff’

Having read a bit of Pope St Pius X’s writings, it seems to involve a movement that robbed the substance of the Catholic Faith by introducing subtle changes in the meaning of words. He called it in the synthesis of all heresies, but I was left short of examples.

All I know is that its really bad, and Traditionalists see it everywhere, but I have little idea of what exactly it is.

Can anyone give me a specific guide? It has to be better than “Anything past 1930 can safely be regarded as modernist, whatever it is.”

And what’s the difference between Modernism and Neo-Modernism (I couldn’t find the latter in any popes writings).

Can you give me some examples and helpful clarification?
Click to expand...
This is a rather controversial topic. In this context, Modernism mostly refers to anything post-Vatican II. It is used to describe practices that seem to reject tradition, such as the Latin Mass, traditional prayers, etc., and a tendency to bow to societal, secular, and ecumenical pressures.
 
Leonhard said:
I’ve seen a lot Catholics, whether Vatican or Traditionally bendt, and Sedevacantists throw around the term Modernism quite a lot.

I only have the vaguest notion of what it means. ‘Modernism = Bad New Stuff’

Having read a bit of Pope St Pius X’s writings, it seems to involve a movement that robbed the substance of the Catholic Faith by introducing subtle changes in the meaning of words. He called it in the synthesis of all heresies, but I was left short of examples.

All I know is that its really bad, and Traditionalists see it everywhere, but I have little idea of what exactly it is.

Can anyone give me a specific guide? It has to be better than “Anything past 1930 can safely be regarded as modernist, whatever it is.”

And what’s the difference between Modernism and Neo-Modernism (I couldn’t find the latter in any popes writings).

Can you give me some examples and helpful clarification?
Click to expand...
AllSeasons said:
This is a rather controversial topic. In this context, Modernism mostly refers to anything post-Vatican II. It is used to describe practices that seem to reject tradition, such as the Latin Mass, traditional prayers, etc., and a tendency to bow to societal, secular, and ecumenical pressures.
Click to expand...
I suggest that, just as we refer to big “T” and little “t” when we discuss tradition, we ought to carefully distinguish between big “M” and little “m” when we speak of modernism.

What Pope Pius X specifically condemned in 1907 because of the dangers it posed to the doctrine and discipline of the Church was Modernism, a specific philosophy or “direction” with two basic errors which he described as agnosticism, which rejects rational argument in religious matters, and immanentism, which sees the intrinsic needs of life as the source of religious truth.

As used here on CAF and elsewhere, often by those of a traditionalist bent, modernism frequently does mean “Bad New Stuff,” “anything post-Vatican II,” a movement or tendency “to reject tradition, such as the Latin Mass, traditional prayers, etc.,” “to bow to societal, secular, and ecumenical pressures,” or something in that vein.

In voicing their objections to modernism some wittingly or unwittingly cite Pius’s condemnation of Modernism, perhaps to give weight to their viewpoint.

As far as Neo-Modernism goes, I am only aware of the term being used when discussing the arts, and music in particular, an area where I can nothing further.
 
Hello Felsguy.
felsguy said:
I suggest that, just as we refer to big “T” and little “t” when we discuss tradition, we ought to carefully distinguish between big “M” and little “m” when we speak of modernism…As used here on CAF and elsewhere, often by those of a traditionalist bent, modernism frequently does mean “Bad New Stuff,” “anything post-Vatican II,” a movement or tendency “to reject tradition, such as the Latin Mass, traditional prayers, etc.,” “to bow to societal, secular, and ecumenical pressures,” or something in that vein.

In voicing their objections to modernism some wittingly or unwittingly cite Pius’s condemnation of Modernism, perhaps to give weight to their viewpoint.

As far as Neo-Modernism goes, I am only aware of the term being used when discussing the arts, and music in particular, an area where I can nothing further.
Click to expand...
I agree on some levels with you however I think it is quite a stretch to include anything post-Vatican II. That would mean that ALL that is contained in the NO and everything the Church has done since then a mistake and would be a schismatic way of viewing the Church.

The best way to learn what it truly means is to read the Encyclical that is written by the Pope himself that describes exactly what it is. That IS the Church’s definition of Modernism.

Glenda
 
One result of the Modernist’s errors can be demonstrated by several recent threads here at CAF regarding things demonic and the lack of exorcists and those who have to be convinced that the devil is real and not a relic of the Medieval past that was disposed of in favor of modern science. The Modernists relegated all things demonic to mental or physical illness and it no longer is seen as the realm of their church which refers all things of a suspect nature to psychologists, psychiatrists and doctors (as in the case of epilepsy). There are many in the Church, lay, religious and priests, who feel confident that demonic possession is much much more likely to be a medical issue rather than a spiritual issue and all cases should be referred to the psychiatric process and when the doctors give up, then perhaps there could be an intervention of a spiritual nature. But actual battle against the demon has been sanitized by the Modernist’s science and swept away to the psychiatric hospitals and institutions so good people don’t have to be troubled about all that superstitious nonsense. Just look up the numbers of exorcists in various countries and you will see where Modernism has made the most progress. Their decline is tremendous and very telling.

Am I off is using just this one area of decline as an example to the effects of the Modernists on our Church and her life? Well, I am no expert on anything but bacon and eggs, but I’m no fool either. We were warned and we stopped listening. Now we have the results to deal with.

Modernism was and still is a very dangerous error. Learn what it really means and see for yourself where you think it may be manifesting itself.

Glenda
 
glendab said:
anything post-Vatican II. That would mean that ALL that is contained in the NO and everything the Church has done since then a mistake and would be a schismatic way of viewing the Church.

Glenda
Click to expand...
It would appear that that is exactly what some mean when they use the term modernism.
 
felsguy said:
I suggest that, just as we refer to big “T” and little “t” when we discuss tradition, we ought to carefully distinguish between big “M” and little “m” when we speak of modernism.
Click to expand...
ProVobis said:
In the Latin (modernista, modernistae) it’s set up as lower case. No such differentiation. No reason why the English should.
Click to expand...
I hope we are not speaking past one another once again. As the remainder of my post (#9) would indicate, I am suggesting this as a way to differentiate Modernism, the philosophy or movement condemned by Pope Pius X in 1907 in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, from modernism, the catch-all phrase often used here to describe teachings and/or practices of recent vintage. This would be similar to the way in which Sacred Tradition, the immutable body of truth believed and taught from apostolic times by the Church, is differentiated from traditions which are longstanding practices which come and go. It’s a matter of semantics rather than grammar.

Then again, we can all just keep on saying modernism and then argue over it’s meaning for the umpteenth time. 😉
 
Modernism is a word that has been grossly abused by many who do not approve changes the Church has made in the last 50 years. Most of what they complain about is in no way sourced in Modernism. The Church itself, since the time of Paul VI and John Paul II moved away from the use of the term, and instead, identified the sources of the errors which were cropping up.

For example, Modernism is the term used to blame the loose observance of rubrics in the OF; it is far, far more likely to be indifferent-ism - which has nothing to do with Modernism.

Modernism’s source starts with the Enlightenment, which was based on finding truth in the scientific method, reason, and individualism rather than Faith and Tradition. In philosophy, both Locke and Hume were prominent. So also were Voltaire and Rousseau. Mixed up in all of this was politics, with the move from monarchy to democracy. Enlightenment thought in regards to religion sought to remove religion from politics, as it was seen as a significant source of a number of the wars fought in Europe.

When it comes to Modernism in regards to the Church, we are left with vagueness. Saying that Modernism embraces every heresy is to say next to nothing; it is an attempt to provide a blanket definition as to the source or inter-relatedness of all heresy. That leaves one with not more than vague generalities.

Loisy was one of the significant Catholic proponents of what came under the umbrella of Modernism; he wanted to adapt Catholicism to the intellectual, moral and social needs of the day. In short, rather than doctrine being divinely revealed truth, morals or doctrine was to be judged as to its fit in the world; if it did not fit, then morals or doctrine was to be revised.

Note: this is not the same as saying that doctrine might be explained in different terms. An example of the Church speaking differently on the same moral matter is Humanae Vitae, and Theology of the Body. Same doctrine; one with a scholastic approach, the other from a humanist and phenomenological approach.

A modernist alters the source, the manner of promulgation, the object, the stability and the truth of dogma. Calling someone who changes the discipline of liturgy a modernist is a complete misuse of the term. Discipline is changeable; doctrine is immutable.
 
So if you do it a new way, you’re a Modernist. If you do it the old way, you’re an Antiquarianist. Can’t win. 🤷
 
glendab said:
One result of the Modernist’s errors can be demonstrated by several recent threads here at CAF regarding things demonic and the lack of exorcists and those who have to be convinced that the devil is real and not a relic of the Medieval past that was disposed of in favor of modern science. The Modernists relegated all things demonic to mental or physical illness and it no longer is seen as the realm of their church which refers all things of a suspect nature to psychologists, psychiatrists and doctors (as in the case of epilepsy). There are many in the Church, lay, religious and priests, who feel confident that demonic possession is much much more likely to be a medical issue rather than a spiritual issue and all cases should be referred to the psychiatric process and when the doctors give up, then perhaps there could be an intervention of a spiritual nature. But actual battle against the demon has been sanitized by the Modernist’s science and swept away to the psychiatric hospitals and institutions so good people don’t have to be troubled about all that superstitious nonsense. Just look up the numbers of exorcists in various countries and you will see where Modernism has made the most progress. Their decline is tremendous and very telling.

Am I off is using just this one area of decline as an example to the effects of the Modernists on our Church and her life? Well, I am no expert on anything but bacon and eggs, but I’m no fool either. We were warned and we stopped listening. Now we have the results to deal with.

Modernism was and still is a very dangerous error. Learn what it really means and see for yourself where you think it may be manifesting itself.

Glenda
Click to expand...
I don’t want to misunderstand you. Are you saying that you believe epilepsy is a demonic matter and not a medical issue? Are you saying that things like bipolar disorders, schizophrenia, personality disorders and such are cases of demonic possession and not medical issues? It is my understanding that the church requires extensive medical and psychiatric evaluations before considering a case for possible referral to an exorcist. I don’t think the number of exorcists is a fair way to evaluate whether a country has been affected by modernism, but that’s just me.
 
Leonhard said:
I only have the vaguest notion of what it means. ‘Modernism = Bad New Stuff’

Having read a bit of Pope St Pius X’s writings, it seems to involve a movement that robbed the substance of the Catholic Faith by introducing subtle changes in the meaning of words. He called it in the synthesis of all heresies, but I was left short of examples.
Click to expand...
It’s not subtle change that is the problem addressed.

St. Pope Pius X warned {in Pascendi Dominici Gregis }, “Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is commonly called Agnosticism. “ This helps us to begin to understand the use of this term. He expounded on the type of thinking that leads to denial of the Divinity of Jesus; Divine revelation; Dogma; the origin and efficiency of the Sacraments. A system of thought that leads to effective Atheism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top