The Descent of the Modernists

[Michelina]

The meaning of the word arrogant is very simple, GN. One who arrogates to himself something to which he has no lawful claim (in this case, Magisterial authority) is "arrogant". Modernists do just that. They "re-interpret" the meaning of a teaching of the Church in a way that rejects the teaching. They have NO authority to do so. The Magisterium is perfectly competent to do its job and does not need to be "instructed" by self-appointed "authorities".

 

[Globalnomad]

Michelina, if that is so, what room does that leave for any theological thinking by anyone who is not part of the Magisterium?

 

[Michelina]

Michelina, if that is so, what room does that leave for any theological thinking by anyone who is not part of the Magisterium?

Competent theologians may ask Respectful questions and discuss ideas that do NOT reject Magisterial teaching. Good Catholic theologians often respectfully "speculate", e.g. Hans Urs von Balthasar - to whom Pope JPG wanted to give a Red Hat. Unfortunately, he died before the Consistory at which he would have received it. Avery Dulles often wrote speculatively and received a Red Hat. The important thing is "attitude". If a qualified theologian wants to "speculate", there is a proper way to do it, i.e. theological journals etc, where they'll receive appropriate peer reviews and responses.

 

[Caedmon]

Modernism is not a "19th century philosophy". It is a 19th-20th century theological heresy that deeply infects the Church of the 21st century.

Then what is Expressionism? I thought it was a set of philosophical, literary and artistic reactions to industrialization and urbanization.

 

[Michelina]

Then what is Expressionism? I thought it was a set of philosophical, literary and artistic reactions to industrialization and urbanization.

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?invocationType=topsearchbox.webhome&query=Modernism+in+painting

That Modernism has nothing to do with the theological heresy, although some art critics have felt outraged by people like Manet.

 

[Globalnomad]

Competent theologians may ask Respectful questions and discuss ideas that do NOT reject Magisterial teaching. Good Catholic theologians often respectfully "speculate", e.g. Hans Urs von Balthasar - to whom Pope JPG wanted to give a Red Hat. Unfortunately, he died before the Consistory at which he would have received it. Avery Dulles often wrote speculatively and received a Red Hat. The important thing is "attitude". If a qualified theologian wants to "speculate", there is a proper way to do it, i.e. theological journals etc, where they'll receive appropriate peer reviews and responses.

It almost sounds as if the difference between modernist and not-modernist is that between being arrogant or respectful...

Seriously, Michelina, it seems to me more and more to be a useless term. It is hopelessly all-inclusive and fuzzy, and we have attached far too much emotional baggage to it.

 

[Caedmon]

http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?invocationType=topsearchbox.webhome&query=Modernism+in+painting

That Modernism has nothing to do with the theological heresy, although some art critics have felt outraged by people like Manet.

Well yes, Expressionism produced artwork as well, but I was talking about the ideas expressed (no pun intended) in works by Franz Kafka, Georg Kaiser, Wolfgang Borchert and others, and those by their "cousins," existentialists, such as Friedrich Nietzche and Jean-Paul Sartre.

 

[isshinwhat]

It almost sounds as if the difference between modernist and not-modernist is that between being arrogant or respectful...

One uses modern insight to seek further depth into the truths that have been handed on, the other seeks to change what has been handed on in an attempt to conform it to modern thought.

The Modernist as Reformer

38. It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, some idea may be gained of the reforming mania which possesses them: in all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. Reform of philosophy, especially in the seminaries: the scholastic philosophy is to be relegated to the history of philosophy among obsolete systems, and the young men are to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. Reform of theology; rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be for the future written and taught only according to their modern methods and principles. Dogmas and their evolution are to be harmonised with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been duly reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, or at least steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. Ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic parts. Its spirit with the public conscience, which is not wholly for democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy, and even to the laity, and authority should be decentralised. The Roman Congregations, and especially the index and the Holy Office, are to be reformed. The ecclesiastical authority must change its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political and social organization, it must adapt itself to those which exist in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, both in the estimation in which they must be held and in the exercise of them. The clergy are asked to return to their ancient lowliness and poverty, and in their ideas and action to be guided by the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, echoing the teaching of their Protestant masters, would like the suppression of ecclesiastical celibacy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed according to their principles?​

Methods of Propagandism

42. If only they had displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying capacity for work on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such labour in endeavouring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better employed. Their articles to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every instrument that can serve their purpose. They recognise that the three chief difficulties for them are scholastic philosophy, the authority of the fathers and tradition, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war.​

 

[Michelina]

One uses modern insight to seek further depth into the truths that have been handed on, the other seeks to change what has been handed on in an attempt to conform it to modern thought.

Exactly. Well put.

 

[Michelina]

Well yes, Expressionism produced artwork as well, but I was talking about the ideas expressed (no pun intended) in works by Franz Kafka, Georg Kaiser, Wolfgang Borchert and others, and those by their "cousins," existentialists, such as Friedrich Nietzche and Jean-Paul Sartre.

Yes, there are other "modernisms" in different fields. And they may be related in a way, inasmuch as they derive from a rejection of traditional approaches. Ultimately, 19th century philosophy with its rejection of absolutes, invisible realities and respect for tradition, is the root of many of these things.

GN, Theological Modernism is "fuzzy" because of its tendency to make itself impossible to pin down. Pope Saint Pius X said that this heresy is like a "serpent" and hard to get a firm grip on. In colloquial American English, we would say that it is as slippery as an eel. But it is ultimately identifiable by its methodology which starts with a rejection of the clear dogmas of the Church and presents a new teaching which is proffered in substitution for Catholic doctrine. Modernism remains a major problem in the Church in America. The reforms begun by Pope JPG will take time (a generation) before their effects are felt. In the meantime, most of us have learned how to deal with this heresy, i.e. pay them no mind and go to trusted sources for instruction. The internet is a great help in that regard.

 

[isshinwhat]

GN, Theological Modernism is "fuzzy" because of its tendency to make itself impossible to pin down.

Yes! St. Pius X also stated in Pascendi, "...can anybody who takes a survey of the whole system be surprised that We should define it as the synthesis of all heresies?" It is dangerous precisely because it attaches itself everywhere, "...by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety," in an attempt "...to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself."

In the meantime, most of us have learned how to deal with this heresy, i.e. pay them no mind and go to trusted sources for instruction. The internet is a great help in that regard.

Yep. St. Pius X mentioned the following as remedies against Modernism, each of which add up to equal, "always use trusted sources, and always listen to the Magesterium:"

I. - The Study of Scholastic Philosophy
II - Practical Application
III. - Episcopal Vigilance Over Publications
IV. - Censorship through careful granting of Nihil obstat and Imprimatur
V. -Regulation of Priestly Congresses
VI -Diocesan Watch Committees
VII - Triennial Reports to the Holy See

 

[Miss Shelby]

isshinwhat I want to thank you for your charitable contributions, I have learned a lot and I do wish you would post more often. thanks.

 

[Voegelin]

Globalnomad, the difference between St. Thomas Aquinas and a Modernist lies in the words "secular humanism." Rationalism imbued with faith and a sense of the sacred leaves one with great men like St. Thomas. An "arrogant" rationalistic scientism imbued with a strong secular humanism leaves us with the Jesus Seminar . . .

The May issue of Crisis Magazine has an essay (not on the net yet) by Michael Novak titled The Troublesome Term 'Secular' which deals with the Christian humanism of St. Thomas, Dante, Boccaccio etc. vs secular humanism. Novak writes:

. . .prior to the ideological secularism of the last three centuries, there was a Christian humanism, deeply knowledgable about the ways of the world, often highly sensual, and with a great lust for life. Yet it retained an awareness, as modern secular humanism does not, of participating simultaneously in a far more spacious and dramatic world, that of God's grace and human weakness and fallibility . . .

The Descent of the Modernists cartoon is in the tradition, I think, of Christian humanism. William Jennings Bryan, who is cited in the OP as the publisher, was a progressive , a Democratic candidate for President and very concerned with man's material well being. But he wasn't a secular humanist. He was a protestant fundamentalist.

 

[isshinwhat]

Thank you for the reference, Vogelin, I'll check that out.

And thank you, Miss Shelby. I appreciate your kindness.

 

[Globalnomad]

Yes, there are other "modernisms" in different fields. And they may be related in a way, inasmuch as they derive from a rejection of traditional approaches. Ultimately, 19th century philosophy with its rejection of absolutes, invisible realities and respect for tradition, is the root of many of these things.

GN, Theological Modernism is "fuzzy" because of its tendency to make itself impossible to pin down. Pope Saint Pius X said that this heresy is like a "serpent" and hard to get a firm grip on. In colloquial American English, we would say that it is as slippery as an eel. But it is ultimately identifiable by its methodology which starts with a rejection of the clear dogmas of the Church and presents a new teaching which is proffered in substitution for Catholic doctrine. Modernism remains a major problem in the Church in America. The reforms begun by Pope JPG will take time (a generation) before their effects are felt. In the meantime, most of us have learned how to deal with this heresy, i.e. pay them no mind and go to trusted sources for instruction. The internet is a great help in that regard.

Michelina, it is impossible to pin down BECAUSE overzealous conservatives can label any innovative thinking as "modernism". You can't pin down every innovative thinking, and you cannot think innovatively without offending some conservative in the Vatican (or on CF!) and being labelled a modernist. That, in the end, is my problem.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Every modernist I ever encountered was once part of religion.

It was when they began questioning the authority that other questions came to them, to which eventually they saw no need for religion because they themselves were quite adequate to dictate their own terms and did not need an organization to decide for them.

It is a slow venom that courses their minds. They begin seeing 'self' as a finely tuned instrument whom should decide for themselves if the Bible was a myth or reality.

If they could no longer see truth in religion then the Bible was a book meant to control the masses and society.

I have discussed the modern theories for 6 years online, and have heard ppl say the same thing in person.

Once we begin the trail of disagreeing with religion, we start to view the Bible as the cause for religion, and not the product of religion by God.

Hence, modern thinking believes that they are 'free' from constrained churches that teach obedience. They are free to decide that God doesn't exist. Because if 'God' did, He would not have created all the different religions.

It is not how one should see faith, but it is what becomes of one when they first begin to disagree with teachings.

Or...so I have been able to experience through dialogue. It always comes back to rejecting the grace of obedience.

Aside from net debate, as I said, this has been discussed in person with athiests. The very same arguments over and over. And not an easy one to overcome. Which is why my only suggestion to them is....pray for grace. That is the only way to see God and remove the veils.

God Bless.

 

[Michelina]

Michelina, it is impossible to pin down BECAUSE overzealous conservatives can label any innovative thinking as "modernism".

That is completely incorrect, GN. There are other heresies besides Modernism.

You can't pin down every innovative thinking, and you cannot think innovatively without offending some conservative in the Vatican (or on CF!) and being labelled a modernist.

This is not about innovative vs. "conservative". This is not about politics; it is about Catholicism and the Modernists who reject authoritative Magisterial thinking. Those who reject such teaching place themselves outside our communion.

All I can recommend is that you re-read the links given and texts quoted in this thread. Once again, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[geocajun]

Michelina, it is impossible to pin down BECAUSE overzealous conservatives can label any innovative thinking as "modernism". You can't pin down every innovative thinking, and you cannot think innovatively without offending some conservative in the Vatican (or on CF!) and being labelled a modernist. That, in the end, is my problem.

That is true to an extent. I can sit in RCIA classes and watch folks speculate about the faith in the presence of my very traditional parish representatives (including myself and pastor) and they are not shunned for it - there they are respected, and its understood that conversion takes time, and intellectual roadblocks that people have are not necessarily making them heretics, but rather they need honest help. Some of these folks are life long catholics with an earnest desire to understand church teaching, and to do it by discussing what issues they have found. There they are not labeled as modernists. I don't see that attitude so much around here which is sad. I think it does more harm than good and folks should discuss these things more from the heart, guided by the gentle teaching of the church, rather than be beaten about the head with it as if it were a weapon. What can be done to fix it?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

That is true to an extent. I can sit in RCIA classes and watch folks speculate about the faith in the presence of my very traditional parish representatives (including myself and pastor) and they are not shunned for it - there they are respected, and its understood that conversion takes time, and intellectual roadblocks that people have are not necessarily making them heretics, but rather they need honest help. Some of these folks are life long catholics with an earnest desire to understand church teaching, and to do it by discussing what issues they have found. There they are not labeled as modernists. I don't see that attitude so much around here which is sad. I think it does more harm than good and folks should discuss these things more from the heart, guided by the gentle teaching of the church, rather than be beaten about the head with it as if it were a weapon. What can be done to fix it?

The first step is recognizing that there is a problem; rather than play the label and divide game, some honest dialogue and a recognition of difficulty with some church teachings would go a long way. The humanity of those is discussion needs to be recognized, rather than just a label with a dissmisal. I think that you try to do a good job of dialogue, Jason, but that is not the norm around here.
It is one thing to say that liberals are given a voice here, but when they are ignored, derided, or just mocked, it leads one to wonder what the purpose of the whole thing is. Do we look at them as brothers and sisters with honest objections, or treat them as cattle to be prodded over the head with "magisterial" teaching?

 

[Michelina]

That is true to an extent. I can sit in RCIA classes and watch folks speculate about the faith in the presence of my very traditional parish representatives (including myself and pastor) and they are not shunned for it - there they are respected, and its understood that conversion takes time, and intellectual roadblocks that people have are not necessarily making them heretics, but rather they need honest help. Some of these folks are life long catholics with an earnest desire to understand church teaching, and to do it by discussing what issues they have found. There they are not labeled as modernists. I don't see that attitude so much around here which is sad. I think it does more harm than good and folks should discuss these things more from the heart, guided by the gentle teaching of the church, rather than be beaten about the head with it as if it were a weapon. What can be done to fix it?

It's true, Jason, that in real life pastoral situations, we should listen and try to undertsand their difficulties in coming to terms with things they don't understand. In fact, that is what most priests do. Only a few would walk away with no care for the health of their souls. It does happen but it is the exception rather than the rule. My experience is that we have to help them recognise where their difficulties originate.