Author Topic: Modernism - What Part is Condemned by the Church? (Read 6671 times)

trickster · « **Reply #15 on:** July 07, 2014, 08:19:37 AM »

To CentroAmerica

Well, there are so many examples where to start. I can go fetch official docuмents of your pagan conciliar church and compare them with the Catholic Church. There are many. Like in V2 when it says that the Spirit of Christ uses false religions, religious liberty granting rights to errors, the collegiality of the national bishops conferences in contrast with Pastor Aeternus, Pope Francis' recent denial or disrespect to the Immaculate Conception, the novel idea that the Jєωιѕн Covenant was never revoked, the idea that it will be possible for people living in mortal sin to receive Holy Communion, and many more. It is clear and everywhere in official docuмents, official acts and statements etc.

"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?

"the Spirit of Christ uses false religions, religious liberty granting"....why couldn't the Spirit of Christ use anything for his purposes? Even communism and modernism...God is in control. What rights are granted?

Now, I assume you are comparing church development since the 60s with age old docuмents written by popes in the past. Where popes have said one thing and it appears that our church is doing something else...is this kind of the direction you are going or is it the sense you have of things? And are these "evolution of dogma"....?

Bruce

If you still deny that modernism is rampant in the false conciliar church here is a quick 3 minute video of Cardinal Pell telling the world that Adam and Eve were mythological fantasies and that he believes that man evolved from the apes.

trickster · « **Reply #16 on:** July 07, 2014, 08:24:02 AM »

To CentroAmerica

Well, there are so many examples where to start. I can go fetch official docuмents of your pagan conciliar church and compare them with the Catholic Church. There are many. Like in V2 when it says that the Spirit of Christ uses false religions, religious liberty granting rights to errors, the collegiality of the national bishops conferences in contrast with Pastor Aeternus, Pope Francis' recent denial or disrespect to the Immaculate Conception, the novel idea that the Jєωιѕн Covenant was never revoked, the idea that it will be possible for people living in mortal sin to receive Holy Communion, and many more. It is clear and everywhere in official docuмents, official acts and statements etc. i

"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?

"the Spirit of Christ uses false religions, religious liberty granting"....why couldn't the Spirit of Christ use anything for his purposes? Even communism and modernism...God is in control. What rights are granted?

Now, I assume you are comparing church development since the 60s with age old docuмents written by popes in the past. Where popes have said one thing and it appears that our church is doing something else...is this kind of the direction you are going or is it the sense you have of things? And are these "evolution of dogma"....?

Bruce

If you still deny that modernism is rampant in the false conciliar church here is a quick 3 minute video of Cardinal Pell telling the world that Adam and Eve were mythological fantasies and that he believes that man evolved from the apes.

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.

Bruce
Trickster

trickster · « **Reply #17 on:** July 07, 2014, 08:25:12 AM »

To CentroAmerica

Well, there are so many examples where to start. I can go fetch official docuмents of your pagan conciliar church and compare them with the Catholic Church. There are many. Like in V2 when it says that the Spirit of Christ uses false religions, religious liberty granting rights to errors, the collegiality of the national bishops conferences in contrast with Pastor Aeternus, Pope Francis' recent denial or disrespect to the Immaculate Conception, the novel idea that the Jєωιѕн Covenant was never revoked, the idea that it will be possible for people living in mortal sin to receive Holy Communion, and many more. It is clear and everywhere in official docuмents, official acts and statements etc. i

"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?

"the Spirit of Christ uses false religions, religious liberty granting"....why couldn't the Spirit of Christ use anything for his purposes? Even communism and modernism...God is in control. What rights are granted?

Now, I assume you are comparing church development since the 60s with age old docuмents written by popes in the past. Where popes have said one thing and it appears that our church is doing something else...is this kind of the direction you are going or is it the sense you have of things? And are these "evolution of dogma"....?

Bruce

If you still deny that modernism is rampant in the false conciliar church here is a quick 3 minute video of Cardinal Pell telling the world that Adam and Eve were mythological fantasies and that he believes that man evolved from the apes.

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.

Bruce
Trickster

Centroamerica · « **Reply #18 on:** July 07, 2014, 09:19:53 AM »

Quote from: trickster

"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?

Sorry,perhaps pagan was an understatement. What better fitting adjetive would you prefer? Devilish? Satanic? Blasphemous? Masonic?

"For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens." Psalm 95
"Behold, I will bring of the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie."- Apocalypse 3:8

Quote from: trickster

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.

So you are denying the literal belief in hell as being only figurative because many heretical sects also believe this and you esteem their "biblical scholars"?

Note that the focus was not on literal interpretation of the Bible but the entire story of creation. Cardinal Pell threw that out the window and said that he believes that man ascended from lower life forms. Do you believe that man was not created in God's image and likeness but rather came into existence through the passage of time and evolution of lower life forms? Despite your attempt to throw thousands of heretical Protestant "scholars" to your side in this matter, even the heretical Protestants all reject this atheistic notion which finds its basis in Marxist dialectical and historical materialism as well.

Cantarella · « **Reply #19 on:** July 07, 2014, 10:47:12 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

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.

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.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #20 on:** July 07, 2014, 01:18:46 PM »

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: MyrnaM
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.

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!

Cantarella · « **Reply #21 on:** July 07, 2014, 02:10:22 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: Cantarella
Quote from: MyrnaM
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.

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!

Sorry, but there is not possible Church restoration until this issue is resolved. Denial of EENS is precisely the most rotten fruit of Modernism.

Trickster asked for specific examples of how Modernism has changed dogmas. Therefore, the response. If my contribution is not of your liking is just because you adhere to the heretic novelty of invincible ignorance via last minute "BOD", but this does not change the facts.

Again, as always, is YOU who is making an issue out of it with your BOD obsession.

Cantarella · « **Reply #22 on:** July 07, 2014, 02:27:05 PM »

If you really want to win a soul for Christ, Centroamerica, the most important thing to do, in all charity, is to teach and show this soul that he/she must be explicitly CONVERTED to Catholicism before death, in order to be saved. This must be done with the spirit of love and righteousness.

Instead, Modernism has brought the belief that a Muslim can be saved as a Muslim, a Jew as a Jew, an Hindu as an Hindu... etc, which is simply not true. Therefore the need to defend the exclusivity of the Holy Catholic Roman Church for salvation.

The Penny Catechism · « **Reply #23 on:** July 07, 2014, 06:31:57 PM »

That's Centro for that Video (Richard Dawkins vs Cardinal G. Pell including the 4/4 video snippets beyond the clip here)

A 'game tape' if you will to breakdown to see real life examples of Pascendi's own intricacies and insights on Modernism (from both sides)

Like a film room study in Belichick's office (lol)

Wish I had more time in the day to analyze and study this

Centroamerica · « **Reply #24 on:** July 07, 2014, 06:52:59 PM »

Quote from: The Penny Catechism

That'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?

Matthew · « **Reply #25 on:** July 07, 2014, 06:57:38 PM »

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.

The Penny Catechism · « **Reply #26 on:** July 07, 2014, 08:32:50 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: The Penny Catechism
That'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?

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 Penny Catechism · « **Reply #27 on:** July 07, 2014, 10:14:06 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Quote from: The Penny Catechism
That'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?

My mistake on that typo. It should have read instead

Thank's Centro for that Video (not 'That's Centro...')

Agree with your point Matthew that Modernism shouldn't be referring to cell phones, an innovative technology, etc. leading to modern/Modernism being misconstrued for each other

Nishant · « **Reply #28 on:** July 08, 2014, 08:04:54 AM »

The essence of Modernism is the evolution of dogma and the mutability of truth. Its acceptance is the end of all sanity and of all Christianity. Truth is no more substantially unchanging and time invariant but needs to be progressively modified as the centuries roll on. Faith is no more the assent of the intellect to truth believed on the authority of God who reveals, but a product of human conscience and subjective experience. Thus, objective truth is made to be of no account and error and heresy have just as much validity as the only true and saving faith. The Christian faith itself is not a revealed deposit complete and perfect in itself to be faithfully guarded but rather a product of human consciousness in perpetual flux to be perfected by human effort and suitably adapted and changed according to the needs of the times. God's existence itself is not demonstrable from creation, but is unknown and unknowable, so practical agnosticism is the result. This is the end of all reason and of all faith.

Tthe Popes have repeatedly counselled one sure antidote - the precision of Thomistic theology and scholastic philosophy, as a sure and indispensable foundation to master and on which to build - as among the most certain means of refuting this synthesis of all heresies, against ancient errors peddled in a new garb, as well as against the vacuous, imprecise and ambiguous terminology modernists often employ to promote their errors. That faithful sons of the Church must take particular care to master the teaching and philosophy of St. Thomas and that professors of theology take special care to inculcate it in seminarians has been repeatedly enjoined by the Popes. What St. Pius X said with perfect prescience regarding the neglect of St. Thomas came about after Vatican II.

Quote

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.

Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, before the crisis as we know it began, saw the roots of the crisis developing in the abandonment of Thomism. John Vennari has written some excellent articles on it.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #29 on:** July 08, 2014, 10:48:42 AM »

Quote from: The Penny Catechism

Quote from: Centroamerica
Quote from: The Penny Catechism
That'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?

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)

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?