15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis," Dec. 8, 1849.
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 ...
When we speak of modernism, we speak of it with a capital "M".
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.
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.
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)
Could you come up with an example of how the conciliar church is evolving dogma?
Anyways, I liked your thoughts so I hope you continue to think with me on this on...take care for now.
Bruce Ferguson
Trickster
Quote from: MyrnaMWhen 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
Quote from: tricksterQuote from: MyrnaMWhen 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:QuoteThus 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)
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:QuoteThus 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)
"Pagan Conciliar Church"....I am assuming this refers to your earlier statement about pagans can believe in God but the Catholic church requires more. To use "pagan" when you use it in relation to the church is interesting. Why do you see the conciliar church in the light of paganism...more importantly how is the church pagan?
Do you actually believe the two creation stories (Gen 1 and Gen 2) as literal stories? That is interesting, there seems to be a literal belief in hell, and other concepts in the Bible despite the almost consensual understanding of scripture according to scriptural academics of all Christian denominations...interesting indeed.
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.
Quote from: MyrnaMOne 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.
Another example to consider is this novelty that there is salvation not only IN the Church but also THROUGH the Church, meaning that non-Catholics can also be saved without converting to the True Faith, via last minute implicit desire. This is an example of how the modernists have undermined a Catholic dogma, in this case the salutary EENS dogma of salvation, in which there is a need to have explicit Faith in Christ, receiving the sacraments and being subject to the visible Roman Pontiff.
Quote from: CantarellaQuote from: MyrnaMOne 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.
Another example to consider is this novelty that there is salvation not only IN the Church but also THROUGH the Church, meaning that non-Catholics can also be saved without converting to the True Faith, via last minute implicit desire. This is an example of how the modernists have undermined a Catholic dogma, in this case the salutary EENS dogma of salvation, in which there is a need to have explicit Faith in Christ, receiving the sacraments and being subject to the visible Roman Pontiff.
You just couldn't help yourself could you? Here you are presented with one solid opportunity to defend the Church against Modernism and possibly win a soul for Christ and instead you would rather obsess over Feenyism. What a fruitless contribution!
That's Centro for that Video (Richard Dawkins vs Cardinal G. Pell including the 4/4 video snippets beyond the .....
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 ...
Quote from: The Penny CatechismThat's Centro for that Video (Richard Dawkins vs Cardinal G. Pell including the 4/4 video snippets beyond the .....
I don't get it? Pun intended? :smirk:
Quote from: The Penny CatechismThat's Centro for that Video (Richard Dawkins vs Cardinal G. Pell including the 4/4 video snippets beyond the .....
I don't get it? Pun intended? :smirk:
certain persons persuaded themselves that they were acting in conformity to Our Will or at any rate not actively opposing it, in adopting indiscriminately and adhering to the philosophical opinions of any other Doctor of the School, even though such opinions were contrary to the principles of St. Thomas. They were greatly deceived. In recommending St. Thomas to Our subjects as supreme guide in the Scholastic philosophy, it goes without saying that Our intention was to be understood as referring above all to those principles upon which that philosophy is based as its foundation ... And rightly, because, if Catholic doctrine is once deprived of this strong bulwark, it is useless to seek the slightest assistance for its defence in a philosophy whose principles are either common to the errors of materialism, monism, pantheism, socialism and modernism, or certainly not opposed to such systems. The reason is that the capital theses in the philosophy of St. Thomas are not to be placed in the category of opinions capable of being debated one way or another, but are to be considered as the foundations upon which the whole science of natural and divine things is based; if such principles are once removed or in any way impaired, it must necessarily follow that students of the sacred sciences will ultimately fail to perceive so much as the meaning of the words in which the dogmas of divine revelation are proposed by the magistracy of the Church.
Quote from: CentroamericaQuote from: The Penny CatechismThat's Centro for that Video (Richard Dawkins vs Cardinal G. Pell including the 4/4 video snippets beyond the .....
I don't get it? Pun intended? :smirk:
No sir. After your video embed, Youtube displays the talk divided into 4 sections each running approximately 15 minutes
While multi-tasking and running errands, I found myself thinking or analyzing the talk with several considerations...and actually stopped what I was doing for a moment to open Pascendi when I got home to write down my thoughts for further inquiry
(1a)On the first video at time ~ 13:41 Dawkins (popularly known as an 'atheist') admits/doesn't deny that he is an Agnostic. He says: "I'm totally confident there is a God. I'm totally confident there isn't a God."
(1b)Pascendi under #6: "But how the Modernists make the transition from Agnosticism, which is a state of pure nescience, to scientific and historic Atheism, which is a doctrine of positive denial..."
(1c)Today one can easily google "Christian Agnostic" and find people who claim as such under literature, forum boards, blogs, etc. People who believe in God or in Jesus, but have gutted the supernatural living as though they are atheists in practice, but 'agnostic' in belief. One could be a Catholic Agnostic simply by 'believing' in a God, but not really believing the supernatural Mysteries of Faith without doubt. So I guess that was going through my head while during other stuff.
(1a)At the beginning of the second video at time ~ 00:41 Cardinal Pell vocalizes the fallacy of Dawkins of Agnostic/Atheistic Philosophy; which accepts only what is confined to sensory experience.
(1b)Pascendi under #6: "We begin, then, with the philosopher. Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that are perceptible to the senses...from this it is inferred that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject"
(1c)Which goes into your video embed Centro, where Cardinal Pell denies historical accuracy of Biblical creation of Adam and Eve. In other words, historical accounts in the Bible are now held up to 'question.' Interestingly, Dawkins attacks him for this hypocrisy because belief in Original Sin, the Fall, and the reason for Christ in Flesh and His Redeeming Sacrifice are central to Christology and Soteriology. And here, Cardinal Pell, blows it off as if it was no big thing. Which leads into...
Pascendi #18: "Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist."
So no, it was not a pun but just what was running through my mind in terms of 'street' apologetics and where other people are coming from and how to better defend my position (ie looking more into matter/ anti-matter as it relates to the big-bang theory and the pros and cons against -- since that appears where Dawkins was weak at defending)
The purpose of language is to convey ideas and be understood.
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?
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.
Let's just hope trickster reads this Penny Catechism and gives it some thought regarding his position and his questions on Modernism.
Quote from: CantarellaA 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.
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
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
Neil, what's your point, other than being a contrarian who just want [sic] to argue and debate for the sake of debating....and arguing?
.Overall, members have done a pretty good job of answering the troll, trickster, regarding this question he has (which he isn't really interested in having answered). Centroamerica (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=32632&min=0#p2), for example, has given a link to the most excellent book A Catechism of Modernism, by Rev. Lemius. This fine manual of comprehension explains Pascendi so you can actually understand it, because Pascendi is not casual or "light" reading. Fr. Lemius was a personal friend of the saintly Cardinal Merry del Val, who actually deserves to be canonized, in contrast to certain others who have been, lately. That's Modernism in action BTW.
I must say that one item omitted is the most prominent aspect of Modernism, which explains its roots and its essence. This is missing from the 35 posts prior to this one.
Where does Modernism come from, and of what does it consist?
Modernism comes from the proposition stated by the philosopher:
"God is immanent."
In this one sentence is the whole sap and substance of what it consists.
Several entire books could be written on that one theme.
.
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.