Encylicals Related To Modernism

[Perigrina]

 

Sections 4 and 5 from the above mentioned Encyclical. Now compare this to Unitatis Redintegratio which uses the very same verse to support Ecumenism that Pope Pius mentions in the beginning of section 4! And amazingly, that verse is interpreted in the very way that Pope Pius describes as a "grave error", one that can "destroy the foundations of the Catholic faith." And so he forbids Catholics to engage in this "dangerous and evil fallacy". 

 

 

The ecumenism being promoted at the time of Mortalium Animos was based on principles that were not compatible with Catholicism.  As the quote says, the arguments for it were fallacious. It was rightly condemned.   Later an understanding of ecumenism developed that is compatible with Catholicism and is thus taught by the Church.  Even the passage you quoted contains the phrase  "get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act ".  This indicates that the issue lies at the level of principles and arguments, not that any possible form of ecumenism is necessarily bad.

 

I am concerned that you will cause scandal by claiming that current Church teaching contradicts former Church teaching. 

[mortify ii]

The ecumenism being promoted at the time of Mortalium Animos was based on principles that were not compatible with Catholicism.  As the quote says, the arguments for it were fallacious. It was rightly condemned.   Later an understanding of ecumenism developed that is compatible with Catholicism and is thus taught by the Church.  Even the passage you quoted contains the phrase  "get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act ".  This indicates that the issue lies at the level of principles and arguments, not that any possible form of ecumenism is necessarily bad.

 

To me it sounds as though you're speaking abstractly, I only suggest reading the encyclical in it's entirety. The Church has always possessed unity, those some have separated themselves from this unity due to heresy or schism behooves them to return to the unity we possess.

 

“Christ summons the Church as she goes on her pilgrim way, to that continual reformation of which she always has need, insofar as she is an institution of men here on earth.  Therefore, if the influence of events or of the times has lead to deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of doctrine (which must be distinguished from the deposit of faith itself), these should be properly rectified at the proper moment.”

Unitatis Redintegratio  #6

 

~~~

 

"These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith? Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment "Love one another," altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ's teaching (...)

 

How so great a variety of opinions can make the way clear to effect the unity of the Church We know not; that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians. But We do know that from this it is an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to modernism, as they call it. Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life.(...)

 

Mortalium Animos #9

 

 

I am concerned that you will cause scandal by claiming that current Church teaching contradicts former Church teaching. 

 

 

 

There does seem to be an *apparent* contradiction at least, no? Again, read the encyclical, we're all simply seeking to understand. 

[Perigrina]

There does seem to be an *apparent* contradiction at least, no? Again, read the encyclical, we're all simply seeking to understand. 

 

I just explained why there is no contradiction. Simply reading the encyclical without the background to properly understand it will lead to confusion not to understanding.

 

When you post things that undermine Church teaching you risk disturbing the faith of others.  I have seen people who ended up leaving the Church because others kept on pointing out "contradictions" to them.  

 

I also object to your posts because to some extent, they reflect on all the posters here who prefer the Traditional Latin Mass.  I do not want anyone to start thinking of me as a person who rejects Church authority because they see your posts as representative of trads. 

[HisChildForever]

 

There does seem to be an *apparent* contradiction at least, no? Again, read the encyclical, we're all simply seeking to understand. 

 

No, it seems like you're seeking to undermine Vatican II.

[mortify ii]

I just explained why there is no contradiction. Simply reading the encyclical without the background to properly understand it will lead to confusion not to understanding.

When you post things that undermine Church teaching you risk disturbing the faith of others. I have seen people who ended up leaving the Church because others kept on pointing out "contradictions" to them.

I also object to your posts because to some extent, they reflect on all the posters here who prefer the Traditional Latin Mass. I do not want anyone to start thinking of me as a person who rejects Church authority because they see your posts as representative of trads.

I'm typing on my phone here so pardon any spelling errors, but I'm not seeking to undermine Church authority. I admit I am confused over certain documents because the do appear, and I stress the word appearance, to contradict. The dangers Pope Pius attributed to ecumenism have come true. There is wide spread indifferentism, modernism, and relativising of our doctrines. Bringing people into the Church is no longer a priority, but some obscure and nebulous notion of "unity".

[Perigrina]

I'm typing on my phone here so pardon any spelling errors, but I'm not seeking to undermine Church authority. I admit I am confused over certain documents because the do appear, and I stress the word appearance, to contradict. The dangers Pope Pius attributed to ecumenism have come true. There is wide spread indifferentism, modernism, and relativising of our doctrines. Bringing people into the Church is no longer a priority, but some obscure and nebulous notion of "unity".

 

You are coming across as trying to remain within the rules by framing your undermining of Church teaching as questions, rather than as a person who is genuinely seeking understanding.  You dismissed the answer I gave you as "abstract" and continued to post alleged contradictions.

 

While it is certainly true that we see a lot of relativism and indifferentism, these are characteristics of the dominant secular society, so there is no reason to think that these are caused by any flaws in Church teaching.  It is possible that some Catholics have promoted a bad form of ecumenism due to the fact that many people have misinterpreted Vatican II.  As Pope Benedict said:

 

Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult?

Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or - as we would say today - on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit.

On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call "a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture"; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the "hermeneutic of reform", of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.

[mortify ii]

You wrote in an abstract way in your previous post because you made vague statements. You said Pope Pius condemned certain principles of ecumenism but you never explained what those principles were, nor did you explain how Vat II version of ecumenism is consistent with Pope Pius' encyclical, which btw dismesses ecumenical dialogue on the whole and encourages separated Christians to return to the unity the Catholic church already possesses. So I did not simply dismiss your post, you provided no explanation! If I'm confused and wrong I encourage correction, so why not focus on the issue instead of speculating on my heart?

[Perigrina]

You wrote in an abstract way in your previous post because you made vague statements. You said Pope Pius condemned certain principles of ecumenism but you never explained what those principles were, nor did you explain how Vat II version of ecumenism is consistent with Pope Pius' encyclical, which btw dismesses ecumenical dialogue on the whole and encourages separated Christians to return to the unity the Catholic church already possesses. So I did not simply dismiss your post, you provided no explanation! If I'm confused and wrong I encourage correction, so why not focus on the issue instead of speculating on my heart?

 

I have no right to question your motives and I apologize for having done so.  

 

In order to understand what exactly was being condemned in Mortalium Animos, pay close attention to par. 2:

 

2. A similar object is aimed at by some, in those matters which concern the New Law promulgated by Christ our Lord. For since they hold it for certain that men destitute of all religious sense are very rarely to be found, they seem to have founded on that belief a hope that the nations, although they differ among themselves in certain religious matters, will without much difficulty come to agree as brethren in professing certain doctrines, which form as it were a common basis of the spiritual life. For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

 

 

Unity among Christians is assumed to be a good thing throughout the encyclical.  The problem is the ecumenical movement of that time was based on the belief that religion comes from an inborn religious sense rather than from objective truth and that therefore all religions are equally good.  As you may recall from my earlier posts, this is the underlying fallacy that ties together all the errors of modernism.  The ecumenical movement then had a wrong understanding of religion, of Christianity and of Church.  The next few paragraphs explain this in detail.

 

It was wrong to participate in the ecumenical organizations of that time because it would have been supporting their wrong foundational ideas.  See par 8 : "This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ."

 

Some of the comments refer specifically to the ongoing plans for what eventually became the World Council of Churches.  Par. 9 gives many details about why Catholics should not join such a structure.  The Catholic Church is still not a member of the WCC although we send observers to their assemblies.

 

This focus on underlying principles is again apparent in the Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio. After a few introductory sentences, it immediately begins by describing "Catholic Principles on Ecumenism".  These bear no resemblance whatsoever to those condemned in Mortalium Animos.  The Council document reiterates the objective nature of the truth of the Catholic faith and introduces the concept of "imperfect communion":

 

For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church - whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church - do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. 

 

Moreover  some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elements too. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to Christ, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

 

The Catholic understanding of ecumenism has nothing to do with the erroneous belief that religion is a subjective phenomenon.  It is based on recognizing the elements of grace and truth present among non-Catholic Christians and acknowledging their connection to us.  There is no contradiction between the earlier and current teaching.

[PhuturePriest]

All I gotta say is read some of the encyclicals...

Read on religious unity or on liberty and ask your self whether modernism went away or whether it succeeded.

 

I have no doubt it succeeded. But it's grown into specific things like relativism, and so we're speaking about those specific things rather than the very broad term that is "modernism".

[Skinzo]

Like I said, read some of the encyclicals... They can be quite a shock to us in the post-vat ii world

 

It wasn't all pre-Vatican II. Paul VI recognized the dangers of a new modernism in his very first encyclical (which incidentally also condemned communism): 

From "Ecclesiam Suam" 1964

 

"The Church itself is being engulfed and shaken by this tidal wave of change, for however much men may be committed to the Church, they are deeply affected by the climate of the world. They run the risk of becoming confused, bewildered and alarmed, and this is a state of affairs which strikes at the very roots of the Church. It drives many people to adopt the most outlandish views. They imagine that the Church should abdicate its proper role, and adopt an entirely new and unprecedented mode of existence. Modernism might be cited as an example. This is an error which is still making its appearance under various new guises, wholly inconsistent with any genuine religious expression. It is surely an attempt on the part of secular philosophies and secular trends to vitiate the true teaching and discipline of the Church of Christ"

 

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_06081964_ecclesiam_en.html

[Perigrina]

You wrote in an abstract way in your previous post because you made vague statements. You said Pope Pius condemned certain principles of ecumenism but you never explained what those principles were, nor did you explain how Vat II version of ecumenism is consistent with Pope Pius' encyclical...

 

Because you wrote this, I wrote a long post answering your question in detail.  I have seen you posting in other threads since then, but you have not even acknowledged that I have now explained which principles Pope Pius condemned and explained how it is consistent with Vatican II.

[mortify ii]

Because you wrote this, I wrote a long post answering your question in detail.  I have seen you posting in other threads since then, but you have not even acknowledged that I have now explained which principles Pope Pius condemned and explained how it is consistent with Vatican II.

 

I don't have to acknowledge your post or respond to it. It may be that you are overly focusing on one point Pope Pius made and me having to explain would require more time and energy that is simply not worthwhile. So I simply encourage people to read the encyclical from beginning to end for themselves and let them make their own judgement. 

[Perigrina]

I don't have to acknowledge your post or respond to it. It may be that you are overly focusing on one point Pope Pius made and me having to explain would require more time and energy that is simply not worthwhile. So I simply encourage people to read the encyclical from beginning to end for themselves and let them make their own judgement. 

 

So  when I give a brief answer, you dismiss it as too abstract, but when I give a long, detailed answer, it is not worthwhile responding.  And you are seeking understanding.  

[mortify ii]

So  when I give a brief answer, you dismiss it as too abstract, but when I give a long, detailed answer, it is not worthwhile responding.  And you are seeking understanding.  

 

"In the document of Vatican II on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, there is not a single mention of the two previous documents that deal with the ecumenical movement and other religions: Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum and Pius XI'sMortalium Animos. The approach to ecumenism and other religions in these documents is fundamentally different from the approach of the Vatican II document or Ut Unum Sint by Pope John Paul II. While the current Magisterium can change a teaching that falls under non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching, nevertheless, when the Magisterium makes a judgment in these cases, it has an obligation due to the requirements of the moral virtue of prudence to show how the previous teaching was wrong or is now to be understood differently by discussing the two different teachings. However, this is not what has happened. The Magisterium since Vatican II often ignores previous documents which may appear to be in opposition to the current teaching, leaving the faithful to figure out how the two are compatible, such as in the cases of Mortalium Animos and Ut Unum Sint. This leads toconfusion and infighting within the Church as well as the appearance of contradicting previous Church teaching without explanation or reasoned justification."

 

Fr Chad Ripperger, FSSP. 

[Credo in Deum]

"In the document of Vatican II on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, there is not a single mention of the two previous documents that deal with the ecumenical movement and other religions: Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum and Pius XI'sMortalium Animos. The approach to ecumenism and other religions in these documents is fundamentally different from the approach of the Vatican II document or Ut Unum Sint by Pope John Paul II. While the current Magisterium can change a teaching that falls under non-infallible ordinary magisterial teaching, nevertheless, when the Magisterium makes a judgment in these cases, it has an obligation due to the requirements of the moral virtue of prudence to show how the previous teaching was wrong or is now to be understood differently by discussing the two different teachings. However, this is not what has happened. The Magisterium since Vatican II often ignores previous documents which may appear to be in opposition to the current teaching, leaving the faithful to figure out how the two are compatible, such as in the cases of Mortalium Animos and Ut Unum Sint. This leads toconfusion and infighting within the Church as well as the appearance of contradicting previous Church teaching without explanation or reasoned justification."

Fr Chad Ripperger, FSSP.

How long how you been sitting on this quote?