Author Topic: What exactly is Modernism? (Read 2221 times)

ajpirc · « **on:** July 09, 2011, 07:51:05 PM »

There is a crisis in the Church that has been here for over a century: Modernism. The first time I heard about it was when I looked it up, not because I was curious about the heresy, but because I didn't like how Protestants and NO Catholics (any difference?) have modernized Christianity from the ancient and beautiful religion that only the Eastern Orthodox have preserved (I actually considered converting to Eastern Orthodoxy/Eastern Catholicism).

As I looked it up, I had realized that His Holiness Pope St. Pius X had spent most of His Holiness pontificate refuting Modernism. Of course I saw this as an advantage for me against modernizers. As I saw that it was a heresy, I did more research into it, but didn't really find much on it; this research though kept pushing me more and more toward traditional Catholicism.

Could someone explain to me what exactly Modernism is and a brief history of it in the Church (sources and quotes would be great also)?

Thank You

Daegus · « **Reply #1 on:** July 09, 2011, 08:00:28 PM »

Quote from: ajpirc

There is a crisis in the Church that has been here for over a century: Modernism. The first time I heard about it was when I looked it up, not because I was curious about the heresy, but because I didn't like how Protestants and NO Catholics (any difference?) have modernized Christianity from the ancient and beautiful religion that only the Eastern Orthodox have preserved (I actually considered converting to Eastern Orthodoxy/Eastern Catholicism).

As I looked it up, I had realized that His Holiness Pope St. Pius X had spent most of His Holiness pontificate refuting Modernism. Of course I saw this as an advantage for me against modernizers. As I saw that it was a heresy, I did more research into it, but didn't really find much on it; this research though kept pushing me more and more toward traditional Catholicism.

Could someone explain to me what exactly Modernism is and a brief history of it in the Church (sources and quotes would be great also)?

Thank You

First of all, you should never convert to the Eastern "Orthodox" religion. It is a false religion that confers no grace whatsoever, does not subject itself to papal authority and rejects around 13 (or more, I'm not sure) ecuмenical councils. If you really like the "Eastern" faith so much, then you should attend the services of Eastern Catholics, NOT those of the "Orthodox". Many things are pretty much identical. The only difference between the two is that one does not deny articles of faith that are necessary for salvation and actually confers grace.

If you want to know about Modernism, read Pope St. Pius X's encyclical "Pascendi Dominici Gregis".

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

To put it simply, modernism is a false religion that capitalizes on making man God. It says all religions are the same, it disregards modesty, brings about moral relativism and it is basically the religion of Satan. It leads people to atheism/agnosticism and humanism and to religious indifference. That is what modernism is. It is basically an umbrella term for the driving force behind many of the heresies that have manifested themselves very recently in the modern world.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #2 on:** July 09, 2011, 08:23:00 PM »

There is much to say about Modernism. According to the twin Radecki twins, their book says:
"Modernists have made Catholic teaching subject to the individual conscience and thus moral absolutes became non existent. Right and wrong is determined by each individual as "situation ethics" dictates."

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #3 on:** July 09, 2011, 11:04:10 PM »

To get a good understanding of what modernism is and why it's wrong, I suggest reading Pascendi Dominici Gregis if you haven't already, an encyclical from Pope St. Pius X that was perhaps the greatest encyclical ever written.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

Repeating what Daegus said, you shouldn't become an Easter Rite Catholic. The Eastern Rite does not hold the same Tradition that dates back to the Apostles.

Daegus · « **Reply #4 on:** July 10, 2011, 12:05:12 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

To get a good understanding of what modernism is and why it's wrong, I suggest reading Pascendi Dominici Gregis if you haven't already, an encyclical from Pope St. Pius X that was perhaps the greatest encyclical ever written.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm

Repeating what Daegus said, you shouldn't become an Easter Rite Catholic. The Eastern Rite does not hold the same Tradition that dates back to the Apostles.

Well, that's not quite what I said. I said he should not become a member of the Eastern "Orthodox" faith community, which is a false religion altogether. There's nothing wrong with the Eastern Rite itself (provided it is Catholic). Their liturgy did not get tackled by Vatican II according to my knowledge and they do have valid apostolic succession.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #5 on:** July 10, 2011, 12:19:20 PM »

Quote from: Daegus

Well, that's not quite what I said. I said he should not become a member of the Eastern "Orthodox" faith community, which is a false religion altogether. There's nothing wrong with the Eastern Rite itself (provided it is Catholic). Their liturgy did not get tackled by Vatican II according to my knowledge and they do have valid apostolic succession.

This is not correct, there are some changes in their liturgy and tradition, even though the validity is certainly preserved - provided that "ad hoc"-translations into the vernacular, not unusual in some places, are not too far apart from the original.

The problem is that Eastern prelates are sometimes consecrated by Novus Ordo Roman Rite Bishops, mixing up things pretty badly.

There is also the Society of St. Josaphat, which tries to preserve the tradition of the Ukrainian Uniates.

Daegus · « **Reply #6 on:** July 10, 2011, 12:31:51 PM »

Quote from: Pyrrhos

Quote from: Daegus
Well, that's not quite what I said. I said he should not become a member of the Eastern "Orthodox" faith community, which is a false religion altogether. There's nothing wrong with the Eastern Rite itself (provided it is Catholic). Their liturgy did not get tackled by Vatican II according to my knowledge and they do have valid apostolic succession.

This is not correct, there are some changes in their liturgy and tradition, even though the validity is certainly preserved - provided that "ad hoc"-translations into the vernacular, not unusual in some places, are not too far apart from the original.

The problem is that Eastern prelates are sometimes consecrated by Novus Ordo Roman Rite Bishops, mixing up things pretty badly.

There is also the Society of St. Josaphat, which tries to preserve the tradition of the Ukrainian Uniates.

I stand corrected.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #7 on:** July 11, 2011, 10:35:57 AM »

Yeah, Pyrrhos is correct. It's not really good to attend an Eastern Rite Mass if you're a Latin Rite (Traditional) Catholic because that brings on nothing but confusion, especially if you take your kids to the Eastern Rite. I actually have an Eastern Rite Church in my area that my mother and I used to attend but we stopped going when we realized it wasn't worth attending because we're Latin Rite Catholics. It was Archbishop LeFebvre who said the Eastern Rite Church should align with us, not the other way around.

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #8 on:** July 11, 2011, 10:42:04 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

It was Archbishop LeFebvre who said the Eastern Rite Church should align with us, not the other way around.

Well, I would not say exactly this. The latest Papal decisions were very strong in support of the Eastern Rites continuing their holy and apostolic tradition. They are in no wise inferior to the Roman Rite, the Ambrosian, Dominican, Mozarabic or whatever other rite, but maybe more fitting for the character and temperament of the Orientals. It would be probably also difficult for us to adapt to their practices, for example the much more rigid fasting laws.

The problem is that the Novus Ordo aligned Orientals, specifically in Western countries, do not preserve their faith, tradition and liturgy in their entirety, but are also very often tainted with modernistic concepts.

But looking at Canon Law, people born in the Roman Rite should remain in their Rite, even though there is nothing wrong with receiving the sacraments in the Oriental Rites, especially the Eucharist and Confession.

ajpirc · « **Reply #9 on:** August 07, 2011, 06:54:16 PM »

Are liberalism and modernism the same thing?

Pyrrhos · « **Reply #10 on:** August 07, 2011, 07:08:23 PM »

Not exactly. But this also depends on the specific kind of liberalism you are speaking of.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, which gives a good overview on the subject of Liberalism:

Quote

The most fundamental principle asserts an absolute and unrestrained freedom of thought, religion, conscience, creed, speech, press, and politics. The necessary consequences of this are, on the one hand, the abolition of the Divine right and of every kind of authority derived from God; the relegation of religion from the public life into the private domain of one's individual conscience; the absolute ignoring of Christianity and the Church as public, legal, and social institutions; on the other hand, the putting into practice of the absolute autonomy of every man and citizen, along all lines of human activity, and the concentration of all public authority in one "sovereignty of the people". This sovereignty of the people in all branches of public life as legislation, administration, and jurisdiction, is to be exercised in the name and by order of all the citizens, in such a way, that all should have share in and a control over it.

Early Catholic liberals, most prominently Lamennais, did not directly share the same theological and philosophical opinions as those of the modernists. Modernism as such is also much harder to define, since it embraces a wide field of modern errors in many different forms, the most noticeable could be the denial of dogma. A liberalist would not necessarily deny the existence of dogma or ecclesiastical authority, even though their system of thought would logically lead to this conclusion, as seen above.

Still, in the very beginnings of Liberalism connections with Jansenism can be found. And the synthesis of Jansenism and Liberalism could already be called the prototype of modernism.
Pius X. also condemned some liberalist proposition as modernist errors. As you can see, every modernist is a liberal, but not every liberal a modernist - but I think there is hardly a non-modernist liberal in these days, as this position would at some point be self-contradictory.