A Correction...

[JesusLovesOurLady]

I haven't put "*Catholics Only*" because I want any and all non-Catholics who have read my stuff in the past to see this. However, this is still a Catholic sub-forum, and I have no desire to debate right now, so please be respectful and abide by the rules.

I have been wanting to post this for sometime, but haven't been able to find the right opportunity, in the past on here I have repeatedly used the word "modernist" to refer to various unfaithful "catholics" who hold specific views that go against the authentic teachings of the Church. (not to mention, the Natural Moral Law) It turns out, that I was totally wrong in referring to these people as "modernist," it now appears that the vast majority of modernists have long-since gone.

You see, Pope St. Pius X, clearly defined the heresy of modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, (see here: Pascendi Dominici Gregis (September 8, 1907) | PIUS X) in this encyclical, he identifies two key beliefs that need to be held in order for one to be a modernist: Theological Agnosticism, and Vital Immanence. Now vast majority of today's unfaithful "catholics" clearly believe in Vital Immanance, (the belief that one can know God through one's own emotions and personal experience) however this vast majority does not believe in Theological Agnosticism. Instead, the majority of these people now believe in Theological Relativism, or Existentialism, -Which is somewhat ironic because, in my totally fallible opinion, I personally think Existentialism is one of the most evil philosophies ever to be invented.- as they are much more attractive than Theological Agnosticism. (Albeit, some may use it as a means of resisting rational arguments and objective truth, this was actually the thing I was erroneously referring to in the past as "Neo-Jansenism.")

The majority of the errors infecting the Church in this day and age actually come from a movement called the Novoule Theologie, which has occasionally been referred to "neo-modernism" and "the inheritor of modernism." I won't go into that much detail on the Novoule Theologie as this post is already quite long, but I do want to say that their teachings are just as contrary to the authentic teachings of the Church as modernism, and even Orthodox-looking Catholics can be bitten these errors, the most obvious being the denial of the Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus.

In regards to these unfaithful "catholics" and what I shall refer to them as, from now, since their errors have not yet been defined and condemned, (though they are undeniably contrary to authentic teachings of the Church) and no proper name has been given to them, I will simply refer to them as "liberal catholics." (with a lowercase "c" in quotations, and occasionally with a "so-called" in front of it.)

Sorry for another overly long post, I just needed to clarify a mistake I made in the past.

 

[Michie]

I don't mind at all people coming in to fellowship or ask respectful questions when they sincerely want to learn about the Catholic faith. What I can't stand is when they use it as a way to refute the answers with the protestant side of things and it turns into brinking the debate policy we have. It should not be such a struggle to post and discuss in a safe haven but it often is. I really try to avoid divisive labels when it comes to Catholicism though. It just another form of Protestanism imo. Groups take Catholicism and give it their own personal slants. I have no issues with different catholics as long as they do not insert their personal agendas into it and actually are in line with the Magisterium. I do not understand some that claim the title Catholic yet argue against what the Church actually teaches and always looking for loopholes. A lot of bishops in Germany come to mind when I think of this issue. Along with a lot of religious here like Fr. Martin and some nuns that have elevated their politics above the Faith and see it as something that needs to be changed and tweaked to suit their ideogies.

I haven't put "*Catholics Only*" because I want any and all non-Catholics who have read my stuff in the past to see this. However, this is still a Catholic sub-forum, and I have no desire to debate right now, so please be respectful and abide by the rules.

I have been wanting to post this for sometime, but haven't been able to find the right opportunity, in the past on here I have repeatedly used the word "modernist" to refer to various unfaithful "catholics" who hold specific views that go against the authentic teachings of the Church. (not to mention, the Natural Moral Law) It turns out, that I was totally wrong in referring to these people as "modernist," it now appears that the vast majority of modernists have long-since gone.

You see, Pope St. Pius X, clearly defined the heresy of modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, (see here: Pascendi Dominici Gregis (September 8, 1907) | PIUS X) in this encyclical, he identifies two key beliefs that need to be held in order for one to be a modernist: Theological Agnosticism, and Vital Immanence. Now vast majority of today's unfaithful "catholics" clearly believe in Vital Immanance, (the belief that one can know God through one's own emotions and personal experience) however this vast majority does not believe in Theological Agnosticism. Instead, the majority of these people now believe in Theological Relativism, or Existentialism, -Which is somewhat ironic because, in my totally fallible opinion, I personally think Existentialism is one of the most evil philosophies ever to be invented.- as they are much more attractive than Theological Agnosticism. (Albeit, some may use it as a means of resisting rational arguments and objective truth, this was actually the thing I was erroneously referring to in the past as "Neo-Jansenism.")

The majority of the errors infecting the Church in this day and age actually come from a movement called the Novoule Theologie, which has occasionally been referred to "neo-modernism" and "the inheritor of modernism." I won't go into that much detail on the Novoule Theologie as this post is already quite long, but I do want to say that their teachings are just as contrary to the authentic teachings of the Church as modernism, and even Orthodox-looking Catholics can be bitten these errors, the most obvious being the denial of the Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus.

In regards to these unfaithful "catholics" and what I shall refer to them as, from now, since their errors have not yet been defined and condemned, (though they are undeniably contrary to authentic teachings of the Church) and no proper name has been given to them, I will simply refer to them as "liberal catholics." (with a lowercase "c" in quotations, and occasionally with a "so-called" in front of it.)

Sorry for another overly long post, I just needed to clarify a mistake I made in the past.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I haven't put "*Catholics Only*" because I want any and all non-Catholics who have read my stuff in the past to see this. However, this is still a Catholic sub-forum, and I have no desire to debate right now, so please be respectful and abide by the rules.

I have been wanting to post this for sometime, but haven't been able to find the right opportunity, in the past on here I have repeatedly used the word "modernist" to refer to various unfaithful "catholics" who hold specific views that go against the authentic teachings of the Church. (not to mention, the Natural Moral Law) It turns out, that I was totally wrong in referring to these people as "modernist," it now appears that the vast majority of modernists have long-since gone.

You see, Pope St. Pius X, clearly defined the heresy of modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, (see here: Pascendi Dominici Gregis (September 8, 1907) | PIUS X) in this encyclical, he identifies two key beliefs that need to be held in order for one to be a modernist: Theological Agnosticism, and Vital Immanence. Now vast majority of today's unfaithful "catholics" clearly believe in Vital Immanance, (the belief that one can know God through one's own emotions and personal experience) however this vast majority does not believe in Theological Agnosticism. Instead, the majority of these people now believe in Theological Relativism, or Existentialism, -Which is somewhat ironic because, in my totally fallible opinion, I personally think Existentialism is one of the most evil philosophies ever to be invented.- as they are much more attractive than Theological Agnosticism. (Albeit, some may use it as a means of resisting rational arguments and objective truth, this was actually the thing I was erroneously referring to in the past as "Neo-Jansenism.")

The majority of the errors infecting the Church in this day and age actually come from a movement called the Novoule Theologie, which has occasionally been referred to "neo-modernism" and "the inheritor of modernism." I won't go into that much detail on the Novoule Theologie as this post is already quite long, but I do want to say that their teachings are just as contrary to the authentic teachings of the Church as modernism, and even Orthodox-looking Catholics can be bitten these errors, the most obvious being the denial of the Dogma of Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus.

In regards to these unfaithful "catholics" and what I shall refer to them as, from now, since their errors have not yet been defined and condemned, (though they are undeniably contrary to authentic teachings of the Church) and no proper name has been given to them, I will simply refer to them as "liberal catholics." (with a lowercase "c" in quotations, and occasionally with a "so-called" in front of it.)

Sorry for another overly long post, I just needed to clarify a mistake I made in the past.

I don't think 'Modernist' is fully accurate, for the exact reasons you gave. But I think "Neo-Modernist' is probably accurate. And that 'Modernist' is actually close enough as long as nobody gets the wrong idea that this modern 'Modernism' is precisely the same thing as that of Loisy and Tyrrell.

I've been reading a book by J. Lebreton published in 1908 called 'The Encyclical And Modernist Theology' (not available at your local bookseller no doubt) that goes in to how slippery Modernism was to define. Kind of like how pornography is hard to define. I think it is entirely relevant to look back to Pascendi to get a clue about what is going on now.

I would be cautious in just using the term 'liberal' because there are many ways of being liberal. There are many ways of being politically liberal, many ways too to be religiously liberal. I'm liberal on the environment but otherwise politically conservative. I'm liberal on social justice but otherwise religiously conservative. Some have called me a liberal. To me the term is fairly useless. More useless than using the term 'Modernist' or 'Neo-Modernist'.

There. I've muddied things up. Sorry. I'm not sure there is a perfect word yet for what we are facing.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

I don't mind at all people coming in to fellowship or ask respectful questions when they sincerely want to learn about the Catholic faith. What I can't stand is when they use it as a way to refute the answers with the protestant side of things and it turns into brinking the debate policy we have. It should not be such a struggle to post and discuss in a safe haven but it often is. I really try to avoid divisive labels when it comes to Catholicism though. It just another form of Protestanism imo. Groups take Catholicism and give it their own personal slants. I have no issues with different catholics as long as they do not insert their personal agendas into it and actually are in line with the Magisterium. I do not understand some that claim the title Catholic yet argue against what the Church actually teaches and always looking for loopholes. A lot of bishops in Germany come to mind when I think of this issue. Along with a lot of religious here like Fr. Martin and some nuns that have elevated their politics above the Faith and see it as something that needs to be changed and tweaked to suit their ideogies.

I was tempted in the past to make my Traditional Catholicism, (now thankfully, I have rediscovered my Hispanic culture, and am having that satisfy my desire) which is why I changed my faith icon back to just "Catholic" from "Traditional Cath." In reality, I'm a Christian in Communion with Rome, A Christian that fellows the authentic Christianity of Christ, that what I and all Catholics who are faithful to Sacred Traditions, Sacred Scriptures, and the Magisterium really are at the end of the day.

 

[JesusLovesOurLady]

I don't think 'Modernist' is fully accurate, for the exact reasons you gave. But I think "Neo-Modernist' is probably accurate. And that 'Modernist' is actually close enough as long as nobody gets the wrong idea that this modern 'Modernism' is precisely the same thing as that of Loisy and Tyrrell.

I've been reading a book by J. Lebreton published in 1908 called 'The Encyclical And Modernist Theology' (not available at your local bookseller no doubt) that goes in to how slippery Modernism was to define. Kind of like how pornography is hard to define. I think it is entirely relevant to look back to Pascendi to get a clue about what is going on now.

I would be cautious in just using the term 'liberal' because there are many ways of being liberal. There are many ways of being politically liberal, many ways too to be religiously liberal. I'm liberal on the environment but otherwise politically conservative. I'm liberal on social justice but otherwise religiously conservative. Some have called me a liberal. To me the term is fairly useless. More useless than using the term 'Modernist' or 'Neo-Modernist'.

There. I've muddied things up. Sorry. I'm not sure there is a perfect word yet for what we are facing.

That does bring up an interesting question when it comes to discussing this kind of stuff, how loose, or strict should are definitions? Should we define modernism by whether or not its adherents believe in Theological Agnosticism and Immanentism, or should we open it up to Theological Relativism and Existentialism? (as a lot of mainstream TradCats do) Should we factor in Teihard's teachings evolution which are so common among net-modernists, as a key trait of modernism, or should we distinguish between the pre-Teihard original modernists, and the post-Teihard neo-modernists? Should we consider support for the status-quo which we call "liberal" as a key aspect of modernism, or should we distinguish between the theology and spirituality of the neo-modernists and their political worldviews?

 

[chevyontheriver]

That does bring up an interesting question when it comes to discussing this kind of stuff, how loose, or strict should are definitions? Should we define modernism by whether or not its adherents believe in Theological Agnosticism and Immanentism, or should we open it up to Theological Relativism and Existentialism? (as a lot of mainstream TradCats do) Should we factor in Teihard's teachings evolution which are so common among net-modernists, as a key trait of modernism, or should we distinguish between the pre-Teihard original modernists, and the post-Teihard neo-modernists? Should we consider support for the status-quo which we call "liberal" as a key aspect of modernism, or should we distinguish between the theology and spirituality of the neo-modernists and their political worldviews?

Excellent questions. In response I have only a few clues.

I think the 'stuff' is not well defined. Thus a strict definition of a poorly defined thing is inaccurate. It is a false precision like the guy who can land six shots within an inch at the very side of the target. Precise but inaccurate.

Had you said five years ago that anyone would be interested ever again in Teilhard I would have laughed hysterically. I don't know what to make of it that he's back now. Lunacy.

I do see that there is a correlation between political liberalism and the 'stuff' going on in the Church. But how strong is the correlation? And what is the causality? Does politics ruin faith, or does bad faith lead to bad politics? Or are they less correlated than that? My hunch is to keep politics separate, particularly because I have seen political conservatism as not always healthy to the faith. I don't think there is a 'true politics' in the same sense that there is a true religion. It's more like if you do away with God, then politics fills the void and becomes a god.

Old Modernism will have transmogrified. It won't be exactly the same thing as described in Pascendi. We won't fully understand it until the historians analyse it fifty years from now. After I'm dead. For now, I'm trying to control my own shock at what has happened, trying not to pass out from the crazy.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That does bring up an interesting question when it comes to discussing this kind of stuff, how loose, or strict should are definitions? Should we define modernism by whether or not its adherents believe in Theological Agnosticism and Immanentism, or should we open it up to Theological Relativism and Existentialism? (as a lot of mainstream TradCats do) Should we factor in Teihard's teachings evolution which are so common among net-modernists, as a key trait of modernism, or should we distinguish between the pre-Teihard original modernists, and the post-Teihard neo-modernists? Should we consider support for the status-quo which we call "liberal" as a key aspect of modernism, or should we distinguish between the theology and spirituality of the neo-modernists and their political worldviews?

Oh, and there are true believer Modernists and then there are simple careerists and then there are the morally compromised. How do we rescue them all? It won't be by the same tactics for all of them. But we have to get some things right before even considering tactics. Things like prayer, the Eucharist, confession, community.