The Descent of the Modernists

[WarriorAngel]

Free thinkers not constrained to religion. Who do indeed think themselves superior in intellect.

Good definition Michelina.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

A) Who are we labeling?

B) If you think Modernism's being trashed or misrepresented, why don't you offer a defense of it?

A) Modernism is a vague word, and it seems to be thrown around with great ease at those with whom we disagree. Who are we labeling? if you don't know, nor do I.

B) A defense of modernism? There is none, if we refer to the philosophy of the nineteeth century condemned by Pius IX. What I do object is to things being called modernist which are not.

 

[QuantaCura]

The main magisterial texts have already been provided, but here is a good, short summary:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411hotm.asp

Also, some friendly advice from St. Jerome:

"When anything is written against some particular vice, but without the mention of any name, if a man grows angry he accuses himself. It would have been the part of a wise man, even if he felt hurt, to dissemble his consciousness of wrong, and by the serenity of his countenance to dissipate the cloud that lay upon his heart."

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

St. Jerome was brilliant

 

[Globalnomad]

Great Links, ND & PCF! Here's another, written for laymen:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm

Modernism, sometimes called the Mother of All Heresies, subjects Catholic doctrine to the prejudices of the arrogant Rationalism and Scientism of Secular Humanism. Its devotees pretend to be people of superior intellect who wish to redefine Christianity in terms that conform to their own shallow opinions about God and Man.

I can't help quick-replying (before I read the rest of the thread) that in that case, every theologian, and St. Thomas Aquinas first of all, would be a modernist. Reword that sentence without all the negative words and it reads:

"Modernism interprets Catholic doctrine in the light of rationalism and scientific knowledge. It is chiefly developed by intellectually-inclined persons who feel the need to define Christianity in terms of human knowledge."

"Written for laymen", Michelina? If the rest of it is like this passage, I would say it is written for simpletons by mental manipulators.

OK, let's see the rest of the thread.

 

[Globalnomad]

OK everyone, I've finished reading the thread, and I suggest that we all take a deep breath. We will not solve this question so easily: we are right in the middle of the great age-old debate between Faith and Science.

The problem with the word Modernism is that it was coined in the 19th century by a Church whose every alarm bell was ringing (quite rightly so) because of
- the secularism made fashionable by the French Revolution
- a group of rising stars, all at once: Marx, Freud, Darwin and Nietzsche
- the loss of the Papal States to the united Italy, which for the first time in 1 500 years, deprived the Papacy of a solid, signiificant temporal power and relegated it to the place it now occupies, a purely spiritual power with a symbolic little piece of territory in the middle of Italy.

It really looked, at the time, as if the Church was on the brink of destruction. And it lashed out perhaps a little too widely against everything that was on the side of Science.

Note that all the documents that you are quoting are from the late 19th and eaarly 20th century. After that, the Papacy calmed down and became more nuanced, more precise, in fighting against those aspects of secular science that needed fighting against (e.g. the messianic illusion of Communism; the anti-humanistic aspect of Nazism and capitalism; the randomness principle in evolution), while restoring its support to other aspects. Pope Benedict's crusade against moral relativism is today's example - quite precise and absolutely right - of the fight against modernism. But this fight can be carried on without ridiculing or demonizing every intellectual probing, every new theological idea.

The OP's cartoon is a typical example of the "give them an inch, they'll take a mile" mentality. I am a furious opponent of this. I answer: if you let them take a mile, it's your fault, not theirs. If they have a right to that inch, who are you not to give it to them?

So, like a number of us have said, give innovation (=modernism) a break. The Church is not static, it must and does advance in its thinking. Thomas Aquinas enriched us immeasurably when he showed us a way to incorporate classical Greek philosophy into Catholic theology - what was that, if not a form of modernism? Even more basic than that, the Church Fathers defined our present faith when they developed the concept of the Trinity and of the divinity of Christ - and NO, those concepts had NOT yet been clearly developed at the time of the Apostles - just look at all the diverse ways they are referred to, in the different books of the New Testament! Or to give a modern example, look at how the Big Bang theory and the science of nuclear particles give us a magnificent vision of Creation, that sets even atheists thinking. On the theological front, I believe that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's ideas of the Cosmic Christ are a genuine pointer towards new developments of Catholic doctrine, that will some day be acknowledged (for now they still scare a lot of people, I think) and will enrich us all.

In the end, "modernism" is just an empty bogeyword. You just apply it to every modern innovation that you have ALREADY decided is wrong and evil. That's fine for verbal shorthand, but it does not help in deciding what is evil and what is not....

 

[Globalnomad]

No, it's quite possible to believe in the Incarnation (=divinity of Christ) without believing in the Virgin Birth.

Please explain.

One can argue that God does not need to use a biological anomaly as a tool to infuse divinity into a human body. That the Virgin Birth can be seen as symbolism to bring out the extraordinariness of Christ and His fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy.

The real problem is that the NT is quite clear about the virgin birth. OK, we see plenty of things as symbolic in the Bible, but to argue against the literalness of the Virgin Birth opens too many holes.

I am merely saying that logically, you don't need the Virgin Birth to assert the divinity of Christ. We believe in it because the NT says so.

 

[Globalnomad]

Well I think the point is that once you get rid of those it's a slippery slope. Frankly once you get rid of miracles, it's not really Christianity - if you consider the incarnation and the resurrection to be miracles.

Depends how you define a miracle. "Modernists" tend to say, rather, that there was some paranormal explanation for them which the people at the time did not understand, and neither do we yet, but some day we will find out. (On this earth, not just in Heaven). Even the Resurrection can be defined that way. The Incarnation is a different category - for God to "crack the interface" and enter humanity as a human being is totally outside the realm of science, so it's not properly defined as a miracle, it is something much higher than that. Any "modernist" who denies the divinity of Christ goes way beyond "modernism" - he has crossed the line that defines Christianity.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

The main magisterial texts have already been provided, but here is a good, short summary:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411hotm.asp

Also, some friendly advice from St. Jerome:

"When anything is written against some particular vice, but without the mention of any name, if a man grows angry he accuses himself. It would have been the part of a wise man, even if he felt hurt, to dissemble his consciousness of wrong, and by the serenity of his countenance to dissipate the cloud that lay upon his heart."

do you like fish? that is a nice red herring. I am not angry, I am quite content at this time.

What you have failed to note or address is the tendency to label as vice that which does not deserve that label. No one has said that the philosophy of the 19th century, known as modernism, is not a vice. What we object to, is every thought that is trying to find a way to understand the truth of God in human terms is labeled as modernism.
As has been pointed out, this thinking reduces Catholics to simpletons at the hands of mental manipulators. If that is the way you wish to live, then fine, but that is not how the Church is run.

 

[nyj]

...

 

[nyj]

A) Modernism is a vague word, and it seems to be thrown around with great ease at those with whom we disagree. Who are we labeling? if you don't know, nor do I.

B) A defense of modernism? There is none, if we refer to the philosophy of the nineteeth century condemned by Pius IX. What I do object is to things being called modernist which are not.

Point A is refuted by Point B. You admit yourself that Pius IX refuted modernism, which means that modernism isn't a vague word. You also say that you object to things being called modernist when they are not. If they are not, there is obviously a "solidness" to the word allowing you to make that distinction.

So what is it? Is modernism a vague word, or just misapplied in some cases? It has to be one or the other.

 

[nyj]

One can argue that God does not need to use a biological anomaly as a tool to infuse divinity into a human body. That the Virgin Birth can be seen as symbolism to bring out the extraordinariness of Christ and His fulfilment of Isaiah's prophecy.

Infuse divinity into a human body? Gee, I wonder how many Christological heresies come out of whatever this "argument" would produce. Would you like to count them out with me?

 

[Tonks]

No, it's quite possible to believe in the Incarnation (=divinity of Christ) without believing in the Virgin Birth. And even in the Resurrection without believing in the "minor" miracles, anthough that one is more difficult to reconcile logically.

One could do without the Immaculate Conception as strictly posulated by Western Catholics (ECs / EOs don't hold to it - though ECs can't deny that it is a valid western interpretation) but the Incarnation isn't possible without the Virgin Birth. One may believe it to be so but that doesn't mean that it is correct.

 

[QuantaCura]

By rejecting those specific miracles, one implicitly rejects the divine authority that has revealed them and which gives testimony to them. Once that is rejected, religion becomes nothing but human invention--and that is the sure path to atheism.

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

By rejecting those specific miracles, one implicitly rejects the divine authority that has revealed them and which gives testimony to them.

And that is the key right there. The church goes out the window, the scared scripture that church produced goes with it.

 

[isshinwhat]

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. In failing to read what is being said, you have created for yourself a boogey man, the same thing you state we are doing. No one is attacking rationalism, only its perversion when it is placed at odds with Catholicism.

2. That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary man.

3. Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, not from without but from within. Hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, none that they do not strive to corrupt.

 

[QuantaCura]

Vatican I's Constitution Dei Filius does a great job of explaining what faith is and how reason relates to it

 

[JeffreyLloyd]

Vatican I's Constitution Dei Filius does a great job of explaining what faith is and how reason relates to it

"Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason." - Dei Filius

 

[Michelina]

Modernism is not a "19th century philosophy". It is a 19th-20th century theological heresy that deeply infects the Church of the 21st century. Pius IX saw what was coming and insisted on convoking Vatican I, over the strenuous protests of his closest advisers because of the Risorgimento that loomed imminently on the horizon, because he saw the urgent necessity of clearly re-stating Catholic beliefs about some of the essentials of our Faith. The definition of Papal infallibility was needed as the primary bulwark of orthodoxy and a re-statement of the Catholic attitude toward Sacred Scriptue and Sacred Tradition also needed to be made. The heresy persisted none the less and the French Church was very deeply contaminated by it. Pope John finally convoked Vatican II in order to complete the task that Pio Nono had begun. The intervening years had divided the Church in Europe and the Catholic response to Modernistic challenges were the business of that Council.

The Decress and Constitutions of that Council were a re-statement of Catholic beliefs and opened the door to changes in Pastoral practices that would translate traditional Catholicism into contemporary language. That is what Pope John meant by "updating" (aggiornamento). But the Modernists, whose minds had been "manipulated" by Secular Humanism, temporarily hijacked the Church (citing the amorphous "spirit" of Vat II, not what it actually said) and became even more aggressive in propagating their "faith". Their faith is based on the arrogant attitude of rationalistic humanism which attempts to usurp the authority of God and the authoritative Magisterium He established as the rock of Christian orthodoxy.

Pope JPG carried out the program of Vat II and produced many encyclicals and other teachings that were aimed at dealing with this mega-heresy of Church history. But it is unrealistic wishful-thinking to believe that the heresiarchs have surrendered and gone away. They will continue to fight for their heresy. And they will be succeeded by people of their mentality and attitude, whose minds have also been manipulated and poisoned by the spirit of this world.

Modernism is not based on a confusion of the mind. It is rooted in an arrogant will. It is a disease of the heart. I have personally known a few Modernists who have converted to Catholicism. I have even helped a few on their journeys. But they are few. The plague of this pandemic heresy is in our so-called "humanistic" culture itself. It will persist. But the Church will ultimately prevail because of the authentic renewal that is happening today, thanks to a large extent to the pontificate of Pope John Paul the Great. It's almost as if we have returned to the time of the Apostles and have begun to re-evangelze the world once again. To those who would like to understand the miraculous ability of the Church to overcome the diabolical lies that have beset her, I would recommend "The Everlasting Man" by Gilbert Keith Chesterton.

 

[Globalnomad]

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. In failing to read what is being said, you have created for yourself a boogey man, the same thing you state we are doing. No one is attacking rationalism, only its perversion when it is placed at odds with Catholicism.

Thanks for the civil reply, isshinwhat. I agree that arrogance is what divides the St. Thomases from the Jesus Seminars (although in this specific example, the intellectual quality of the questioners has something to do with it as well! ), but I think the problem is how to define arrogance. Any questioner can be defined arrogant, if he insists on being allowed to question ideas and interpretations. And the truth is, such people HAVE been defined arrogant, even anti-Church and anti-Christian, far too easily. Perhaps I have reacted too strongly to the tone of the cartoon and of the first posts; but please take it as a warning that this subject is much too complex for anyone to allow themselves glib remarks that ridicule, rather than illuminate.