Thanks. I didn't get that chance to watch all the videos. I remember when it happened it made quite a few headlines. At that point, and even much before that, I remember thinking how impossible it would be for anyone to deny that there are certainly Modernists in the Vatican. Why would anyone want to be in communion with this primate?

Centro., great point and observation

It's like one can know the definition of Modernism and know of Pascendi (I'm alluding to the Prelates/ Religious in Rome) and yet demonstrate Modernism themselves.

At least for me, that is what caught my attention in the series of videos. In terms of what one believes about Christ (Christology) affects what you believe about salvation (Soteriology). And arguably vice versa. Tricky in that a subtle heretical belief over time has a trajectory leading towards an unknowing heretical viewpoint on how salvation works (unknowing to the adherent).

To me, this is one way a person in Rome can be a Modernist (not know it themselves) and yet have many followers.

In terms of how I'm looking at it; yesterdays' heresies repackaged today have their own particular "signature" with its final implication and conclusion being an opportunity to easily see it. Which leads into...

There being a difference between what a heretic says and what he claims his position is -- and from what actually is the endpoint of his position. The final implication and conclusion being a different result from what he intended.

For example, Arius in his writings believed and held the position that Christ was immutable, but his opponents (the Church) replied that his position was incoherent. That what followed from his position is actually heretical. And although Arius thought he wasn't being heretical, he was wrong.

In Arius' case, the Church made a distinction between what he affirmed and what he was accused of affirming. That the natural implication of his position was heretical regardless of whether Arius wanted this implication or not.

It's this general lack of knowledge of specific heresies of yesterday and what their final implications are on one's overall belief that is one of the several hurdles to see Modernism in plain sight --- which goes back to your point towards the Modernism in Rome.


 

For example, Arius in his writings believed and held the position that Christ was immutable, but his opponents (the Church) replied that his position was incoherent. That what followed from his position is actually heretical. And although Arius thought he wasn't being heretical, he was wrong.

In Arius' case, the Church made a distinction between what he affirmed and what he was accused of affirming. That the natural implication of his position was heretical regardless of whether Arius wanted this implication or not.

to clarify the above --

Arius believed he held the non-heretical position (ie Christ immutable), but the Church contradicted him by alluding that from his writings, this position (his claim of adhereing to a non-heretical viewpoint) can't be what followed....

Quote from: Cantarella

A good reminder for all here present:

Quote from: Pius X

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM

 Given 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. 1:90), 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 docuмents.

 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 ...

Yes, we must always speak about the heresy Modernism (capital M) when we use that word. If you want to criticize the modern world or something, use some other term. There is no other "modernism" properly called aside from the heresy known by that name.

Having a cell phone is not "modernism" or "a modernism". That's would be a foolish abuse of language. The purpose of language is to convey ideas and be understood.

Actually, there is another 'modernism' properly called aside from the heresy.

For example, anyone can find a furniture store in Sherman Oaks or Pasadena, CA, called "Modernism."  

It takes no special talent to drive south down Woodman Avenue from Van Nuys, approaching Ventura Boulevard, and look over your shoulder to the left to see the store front in all its glory:  "MODERNISM Furniture."  If you don't believe me, check it out using your favorite search engine.  Or write them a letter asking for some information.  You'll be pleased to find they are quite nice.  That's how they stay in business.

Modernism Furniture
13641 Ventura Boulevard
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423-3701


Modernism Furniture opened its doors in 1988 to offer customers quality service and flexibility in customization. Now, with 20 years of experience, we still continue to offer our expert advice and top-tier furniture at great prices.

Please visit our furniture store in Sherman Oaks & Pasadena, California or call (866) 626-5620 or (818)981-3757

Furniture Store * Contempory * Plasma TV Stands * Leather * Sectionals * Mattress  * Chaise Lounges * Beds * Entertainment Centers * Tables * Chairs  

They sell furniture that they like to have customers think is styled after the Modernism school of architecture.  Their customers are largely ignorant that Modernism is a defined heresy, but even if you were to tell them so, they wouldn't likely care one little whit about it.  They're in another reality from the one in which you and I abide.  Most of them are outside the Church where there is no salvation, but some are invincibly ignorant of the importance of Church doctrine.   Go figure.

Here is a photo of one architectural example:


The Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art at Cornell University is a Modernist building by I.M. Pei.

Modernist architecture emphasizes function. It attempts to provide for specific needs rather than imitate nature. The roots of Modernism may be found in the work of Berthold Luberkin (1901-1990), a Russian architect who settled in London and founded a group called Tecton. The Tecton architects believed in applying scientific, analytical methods to design. Their stark buildings ran counter to expectations and often seemed to defy gravity.


Modernist architecture can express a number of stylistic ideas, including:

    Structuralism
    Constructivism
    Formalism
    Bauhaus
    The International Style
    De Stijl
    Desert Modernism
    Brutalism
    Minimalism

Modernist architecture has these features:

    Little or no ornamentation
    Factory-made parts
    Man-made materials such as metal and concrete
    Emphasis on function
    Rebellion against traditional styles

For examples of Modernism in architecture, see works by:

    Rem Koolhaas
    I.M. Pei
    Le Corbusier
    Philip Johnson
    Mies van der Rohe

In the later decades of the twentieth century, designers rebelled against the rational Modernism and a variety of post modern styles evolved. Examples of post modern architecture include:

    Postmodernism
    High Tech
    Organic
    Deconstructivism
    Metabolism

.

.
.

I think he is just trying to figure out what happened to trickster. There is no doubt that he is a troll of some kind, and not only that but he seems to have abandoned his post.

I think he is just trying to figure out what happened to trickster. There is no doubt that he is a troll of some kind, and not only that but he seems to have abandoned his post.

I find it noteworthy that he started this thread 5 days ago, making 7 posts in the first 13 hours, and then has disappeared -- but only from this thread, which he started, because, since that time on July 7th (his last post here) he has made 24 more posts on a wide range of threads from soup to nuts.  

The first reasonable observation of this behavior is that he must not want to learn anything about Modernism, even though his thread title and OP asks a question about it.  That is, that he asked a question, manifestly without wanting to be told the answer, which, BTW is evidenced from his subsequent 6 posts, as well.  

It would seem that when he found out that other members were wise to his fake ruse, he just ran away.  This is a typical reaction of Modernists, to any discussion of Modernism.  In fact, not only does Pascendi explain this, but in case you don't quite comprehend the message, Fr. Lemius devotes several questions in his excellent book to this theme, for your edification -- that is, if you are truly interested in learning something, which, the OP author apparently is not.

.