Modernism I note  that this term has been used in the sense that the church prior to the Council was in total opposition of modernism as a whole.

What is modernism in the first place; is it anything new - would it include a rejection of life saving technology or information.  Certainly a part of the modernism philosophy is to assert that traditional forms of life prior to the 19th century were outdated.  This was also a very strong criticism of everything the church stood for at the time.

What is it specifically that Vatican II is doing wrong by having conversations with modernist ideas?  I am under the impression that the writing and teaching of the church was aimed at rejecting the rejection of God which was part of the communist movement of the 20th century and the modernist movement in the 19th century.  

Is it not possible to be in conversation with modernism without the rejection of God?

Bruce Ferguson

Modernism is heresy, not to be confused with a broad term encompassing anything to do with the modern world.

Modernism is the synthesis of all heresy. It is the idea that dogmas can evolve and be understood in a different meaning over time. This is heresy. If a person holds to heresy they are outside the Church. You can be a pagan and believe in God. Catholics believe in God, but that is not the minimum one must believe to be a Catholic.

I will recommend a good book. A catechism of Modernism based off of St. Pius X's official condemnation of Modernism the encyclical  Pascendi Dominici Gregis/ Lamentabili Sane.

Here it is in PDF
http://www.saintsbooks.net/books/Fr.%20J.B.%20Lemius%20-%20Catechism%20on%20Modernism.pdf

A good reminder for all here present:

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 ...

Modernism is the synthesis of all heresy. It is the idea that dogmas can evolve and be understood in a different meaning over time. This is heresy. If a person holds to heresy they are outside the Church. You can be a pagan and believe in God. Catholics believe in God, but that is not the minimum one must believe to be a Catholic.

Thank you Centroamerica.  I have found the link and it was also recommended by Nihil Obstate....(spelling)...not too good at pre-vatican II terms :)

I am not sure that the conciliar church is saying that dogma can evolve or be understood in different meaning over time...then it wouldn't be dogma, right?    I think what we are understanding on our side of the aisle is that the human experience changes, our society is learning more and we are applying what can be brought into service of a greater understanding of dogma.  So how a dogma was explained 200 years ago will not be the way it is explained today.  No one - even on the Traditional Catholic time is talking about going backwards in time but rather anchoring 2014 solidly in what our church has always taught...and because I believe that human experience not just tradition and history need to be used in interpreting and understanding revelation , you and I may not come up with exactly the same perspectives.  But no one is saying that dogmas can evolve and meaning is changing over time.. what is changing is our understanding based on the inclusion of many more voices and emerging science ....  

Could you come up with an example of how the conciliar church is evolving dogma?  As a pagan (and because I am indigenous i am not sure if you are calling me pagan) yes I can believe in God, but even today the concilar church teaches us that the church can bring us the fullness of faith, do you believe that is an evolved understanding of the same dogma you just proposed?  

Belief is a starting point; nourishment and growth within a relationship are another part of that truth.

Anyways, I liked your thoughts so I hope you continue to think with me on this on...take care for now.

Bruce Ferguson
Trickster

St. Pius X wrote in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis of 8 September, 1907 to his "venerable brothers", the "patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops and other local ordinaries, who have peace and communion with the Apostolic See” when wrote about the Modernists:

Thus then, Venerable Brethren, for the Modernists, both as authors and propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor indeed are they without precursors in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our Predecessor Pius IX wrote: These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' (Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846)

Quote from: MyrnaM

When we speak of modernism, we speak of it with a capital "M".

Yes used as a noun not a verb... I get that..thanks Myrna... did you know my sister's name is Myrna so it is easy to remember your handle :)

Bruce

She was trying to tell you that you are confusing terms. Modernism as a heresy is with a capital (M) and the modernism to which your post seems to refer to is the modernism of contemporary technologies and culture.

St. Pius X wrote in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis of 8 September, 1907 to his "venerable brothers", the "patriarchs, primates, archbishops, bishops and other local ordinaries, who have peace and communion with the Apostolic See” when wrote about the Modernists:

Quote

Thus then, Venerable Brethren, for the Modernists, both as authors and propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor indeed are they without precursors in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our Predecessor Pius IX wrote: These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' (Encyclical Qui pluribus, November 9, 1846)

Thank you Donkath.  This statement is very clear that Modernists is a mindset that attacks the long held beliefs of the church, right?  I am not seeing how the conciliar church teachings are even connected in the traditionalist mind with modernist thinking.   Could you come up with some examples?

Bruce Ferguson
trickster

One example to consider is this novelty that God loves us exactly the way we are, and we don't have to change one iota.

You see there some truth, "God loves us", but then the Modernistic error, that we don't have to change at all.