Agree Or Disagree?

[Guest]

[Nihil Obstat]

Modernism is a horrible scourge against the Church, and sends so many souls to hell.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

I find the typical usage of the term "modernism" to be exceedingly vague. It seems to be used as a sort of rallying cry among certain "traditionally" oriented groups to express a general satisfaction with the state of the world, but the term does not seem to be often used in relation to a specific person/group or a specific thought or error.

If you could please give the names of a few specific modernists living today, what they believe, the reason why those beliefs are wrong,  then perhaps we can discuss whether they should be treated with oil or fists.

To me it seems a bit unfruitful to try to wage a war on a noun that nobody can seem to define in less than 50 pages. But if people want to take on the various specific forms of it (such as scientific atheism) that we see, I think that is a good thing.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Peace

[Nihil Obstat]

Here are two good starting points:

 

PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISMGiven by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

[Peace]

Thanks. I had a feeling you were going to refer to that.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Peace

[Benedictus]

Basically a reaction against elements of the enlightenment movement in terms of elevating unjustly the historical method, literary criticism and views that tradition is obstructive or irrelevant, even working counter to the Gospel. They viewed many aspects of religion like old meme's that needed updating for a new world. There had been efforts to advance science and deism above religious dogma [along with pantheism, nonrealism and atheism] since the early 18th century too.  

However, how some people use modernism as a critical thing in the church [esp in terms of post Vatican ll] isn't necessarily about any of this.

[Peace]

It does still seem to be a bit of a rallying cry. Who today is a modernist and what do they believe that contradicts Church teaching (in the oath or otherwise)? I honestly don't see too many Catholics (academics or otherwise) who go around saying things that are contrary to the Oath (non-practicing Catholics excluded, of course, as this has always been the case). Who are the modernists? Me? Era-Might? Individual laity? A specific group of liberal priests?

To me at least, the encyclical seems to confront a specific group of academics/priests/philosophers who, at the time, were advocating things inconsistent with the Oath. But the word "modernism" seems to be thrown around today in a way that is much too vague. Most of the time I hear the term used it unclear who specifically is being referred to as advocating or holding "modernist" beliefs, and what specific beliefs and/or manifestations of it are being referred to. Nowadays the term seems to be used almost as if "modernism" is some sort of subconscious mode of thinking that is embedded into the DNA of our society, rather than something that is attributable to specific persons, and I find that to be rather difficult thing to attack because it is too vaguely defined.

For example, assuming that "modernism" is a bad thing, what specifically shall we do to combat it, and who specifically shall we attack (with oil, fists or otherwise)?  It seems to be a thing that is too vague to combat concretely.

But you can do concrete things such as writing books that show the errors of the New Atheists, and so forth . . .

[BigJon16]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Here are two good starting points:

 

PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISMGiven by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

tl;dr 

[CatherineM]

I'm a modernist, yet I believe every dogma of the Church. 

[enitharmon]

Pius X's reaction against Modernism may have been appropriate in its time--though I think the vehemence with which it was opposed contributed to some of the problems that surfaced in the wake of Vatican II. But I think that Traditionalists who want to apply those views today as they were over a century ago fail to understand that both the Church and the approaches decried by Pius X have changed considerably in a century so that some of those things--like historical criticism--are less of a challenge/problem today than they were before WWI.

Some of the things Pius X lists in his oath are real obstacles to the faith and should be addressed with intellectual rigour even or especially today, but I think it is rather problematic to continue fighting against a "Modernism" that really isn't very modern any more. Elements of Pius X's "Modernism" still survive, but there is so much more challenging us today mixed with this--as, I believe, Pope Benedict has addressed with great insight. Clinging to nineteenth century refutations of "Modernism" all too frequently leads to real anti-intellectual tendencies and misses the point that both the world and the Church have passed through a very eventful century that has changed the intellectual landscape dramatically.

Oh well... that is what I think 

[Nihil Obstat]

2 hours ago, CatherineM said:

I'm a modernist, yet I believe every dogma of the Church. 

Could you take the oath against modernism if you were asked to do so?

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Could you sincerely take the oath against modernism and believe everything in it if you were asked to do so?

I figured I would add those necessary qualifiers. I've recently become too acquainted with the ancient Jesuit art of mental reservation and felt compelled to make sure the answer was inescapable.

[Nihil Obstat]

4 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

I figured I would add those necessary qualifiers. I've recently become too acquainted with the ancient Jesuit art of mental reservation and felt compelled to make sure the answer was inescapable.

That is not how mental reservation works, even for Jesuits. :|

[PhuturePriest]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

That is not how mental reservation works, even for Jesuits.

Clearly you haven't been acquainted with the past forty years' crop of Jesuits.

[Benedictus]

8 hours ago, Peace said:

It does still seem to be a bit of a rallying cry. Who today is a modernist and what do they believe that contradicts Church teaching (in the oath or otherwise)? I honestly don't see too many Catholics (academics or otherwise) who go around saying things that are contrary to the Oath (non-practicing Catholics excluded, of course, as this has always been the case). Who are the modernists? Me? Era-Might? Individual laity? A specific group of liberal priests?

To me at least, the encyclical seems to confront a specific group of academics/priests/philosophers who, at the time, were advocating things inconsistent with the Oath. But the word "modernism" seems to be thrown around today in a way that is much too vague. Most of the time I hear the term used it unclear who specifically is being referred to as advocating or holding "modernist" beliefs, and what specific beliefs and/or manifestations of it are being referred to. Nowadays the term seems to be used almost as if "modernism" is some sort of subconscious mode of thinking that is embedded into the DNA of our society, rather than something that is attributable to specific persons, and I find that to be rather difficult thing to attack because it is too vaguely defined.

For example, assuming that "modernism" is a bad thing, what specifically shall we do to combat it, and who specifically shall we attack (with oil, fists or otherwise)?  It seems to be a thing that is too vague to combat concretely.

But you can do concrete things such as writing books that show the errors of the New Atheists, and so forth . . .

It was, as far as I see it, a warning to theologians, philosophers, and clerics at the time to guard against these things. I suppose it was directed at laypeople too, but less so considering the period. Modernism was viewed, and rightly so in many respects, as a threat and distortion that could infect the Catholic perception. .  

The Church now tends to tackle Modernism in it's various presentations -  secularity that's opposed to religion, liberalism [an over reliance on personal experience and self determination], and relativism where it is contradicts Catholic dogma. 

The Modernist, unlike a schismatic, feels no need to break with the church as past beliefs towards a dogma and a different currently held view are both compatible in that view. This sounds nuts but it is a biblical theme, of sorts, in the view of dispensations. That is God works in progressive revelation with people towards greater maturity and understanding in various time periods and contexts, shown in how God has revealed himself through various people, places and religious systems in the Bible. He started with law and discipline, like you do with a child. He then went deeper and demanded the people to move beyond this, as you would expect with an adult. This goes with the view that some periods of human time simply aren't the right moment to reveal the full breadth of truth to the people etc. It'd be like teaching advanced physics to a toddler otherwise

It's probably true some people have taken on a modernist view with regard to the Vatican ll, seeing this time as a break from the past era. This is rejected by the Church, of course.

However, some of the early fears have been dealt with and aspects of liberal Christianity, trending at the time, have evolved and moved on somewhat. That's not to say Modernism has gone away. However, there are now other theological challenges, including post-modernism. 

4 hours ago, PhuturePriest said:

I figured I would add those necessary qualifiers. I've recently become too acquainted with the ancient Jesuit art of mental reservation and felt compelled to make sure the answer was inescapable.

Does that mean you've been doing some mental reservation yourself or have you seen the dark arts in action?

Oh do you really think that revised question is inescapable