September 8th 2007 will mark the 100th anniversary of the Encyclical written by Pope St. Pius X called Pascendi Dominici Gregis. This encyclical was written of the topic of modernism. This Pope told us that while he had managed to “contain” modernism that is was not dead and would be back. My question is where is it now?
Here’s a good article from Catholic Answers. Check out the section on “modern parallels.”
It has taken over the Church, “reformed” it in its own image and likeness, and produced the crisis we are now living through. A small remnant has managed to resist this cancer. These are known as the “Traditionalists”, who still believe what the Popes prior to Vatican II taught, and still reject the errors they condemned.
The term ‘modernism’ is an unfortunate choice. It’s not entirely modern, and it seems to be a chronic condition.
‘Modernism’ is just a type of expression of the western mindset. It derives from it and since the mindset has not changed much, problems like modernism will continue to pop out onto the religious scene. Sometimes it will be recognised as a problem, and sometimes it will not be.
It’s going to be a struggle.
Anything that someone doesn’t like is deemd “Modernism”. Too many who style themselves as “Traditionalists” are simply the right mirror image of the left of the true Modernists like Loisy. All too often their “education” is anything but a true understanding of the Church.
And the gobbulunsll git ya ef ya dont watch out!
No, it is not simply what someone doesn’t like that is deemed modernism: It is modernims is deemed modernism. If you want to read about the errors of the modernists, simply read Pascendi. It would also be good to read “Our Apostolic Mandate” by Pius X. In reading those two encyclicals you will see that much of what is promoted by the hierarcy today is has been condemned by the Church.
Just as a majority of the hierarchy (97% according to Fr. Jurgins) fell into Ariansism after had been condemned by the Church, so too in our day a majority of the hierarchy has fallen into the errors of modernism and liberalism, both of which have been formally condemned by the Church.
You should also read “The Syllabus of errors” of Pius IX. Specifially numbers 15, and 77-80. As a test for yourself, see if you hold to the errors that are condemned in those propositions.
[quote=] Too many who style themselves as “Traditionalists” are simply the right mirror image of the left of the true Modernists like Loisy. All too often their “education” is anything but a true understanding of the Church.
Were the Traditionalists wrong when they said the old Mass was never abrogated? For years the Traditionalists resisted the deception perpetrated by the entire hierarchy, including two Popes, who pretended that the old Mass had been abrogated, and punished those faithful priest who continued to say it. The Traditionalists resisted this error, and this stoold virtually alone against the entire hierarchy, yet, as we now know, they were right all along, while Paul VI, John Paul II, and virtually every Bishop in union with them were dead wrong. They were abusing their authority by forbidding what was actually allowed the whole time. We can thank our new Pope for not allowing the deception to be continued any longer, but rather having the courage to tell the truth.
What a shock Summorum Pontificum was to all those who ridiculed the Traditionalists all those years for maintaining that the old Mass had never been abrogated. What a shock to those Bishops who persecuted the faithful Priests who continued to say the old Mass; what a shock for those “apologists” who misled millions of sincere Catholics throughout the world. I sure hope they have confessed that sin.
Answer me this: How is it that the Traditionalists were the only ones who knew the truth?
Next, take the “pro multis” debate. How is it that the Traditionalists knew that the words of consecration in the vernacular versions of the new mass were wrong? For years the self professed “apologists”, such as Jimmy Akin and others, ridiculed the Traditionalists for maintaining what the Church had always taught (in the Catechism of Trent, for example). Then, finally, after 37 years of having the wrong words used at the consecration of vernacular masses (which, in effect, amounted to a lie), Rome finally admitted that pro multis should be translated as “for many”, and not “for all”. (This, by the way, is exactly contrary to what the Vatican said under Paul VI.)
Once again, our new Pope was willing to tell the truth and thereby vindicate the Traditionalists who, for 37 years, stood virtually alone, and were ridiculed, for doing nothing but refusing to go along with an error that was being taught and promoted by the hierarchy (although never by the extraordinary - “infallible” - magisterium which could never do such a thing). How was it that the Traditionalists knew the truth the whole time, even when Rome itself was teaching this error?
Answer: Becaue the Traditionalists continued to hold to what the Church had always taught. They refused to accept as true the opposite of what the Church taught prior to Vatican II. By holding fast to what the Church has always taught, the Traditionalists are being proven right again and again.
Finally Rome has admitting the truth with regard to the Mass. Hopefully next they will abandon false ecumenism and religious liberty, both of which have been condemned by the Church (religious liberty was condemned in “Libertas” by Leo XIII, and other places, and false ecumenism was condemned in Mortalium Animos, by Pope Pius XI)
The true friends of the Church are not the blind who follow the blind, but those who hold fast to what the Church has always taught: that is, the Traditionalists
**Pope St. Pius X: “Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists” (Our Apostolic Mandate). **
You would do well to read the encyclicals I mentioned in this post.
There is a another thread *Pius X and Modernism *for those who want a different spin on this topic.
It got closed.
Interesting. I used to bring that point up all the time, only to be mocked for claiming such a thing. After all, they would maintain, why would John Paul II grant an Indult (permission to do what is not legal) for the use of the Missal of 1962 if it was never abrogated?
JKirk, are you telling me that you have always maintained that the old Mass was never abrogated and this did not require any special Indult? Were you really on the side of the Traditionalists on that point?
[quote=]Second, very, very many Traditionalists have insisted that “for all” invalidated the Mass (was “wrong,” in your words, I assume morally). The Vatican clearly stated that this was not the case, even when they had it changed back to “for many,” as a more accurate interpretation of the Latin.
But the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, under Paul VI- also said that “for all” was the correct translation. They said that “In the approval given to this vernacular variation in the liturgical text, nothing less than correct has crept in, which would require correction or amendment.” ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur46.htm
If they “revised” that statement, maybe in the future they will revise the statement you are referring to.
And how many times was the above quote from the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Sacraments thrown at me over the years as I maintained, in accord with Tradition and the explicit teaching of the Catechism of Trent, that “for all” was an incorrect translation. For years those who stood for the truth were labeled all kinds of names and said to be disobedient to Rome…yet in the end they were proven to be right. What does that teach us?
It teaches us that the truth does not change to its contrary, regardless of who is saying it does. It also shows us that if we hold to what the Church has always taught, we will be on safe ground.
Just as we could be certain that pro multis should not have been translated as “for all”, so too can we know with certainty that religious liberty and false ecumenism, which were condemned many times over, yet which are openly professed from the highest levels of the Church today, are errors. We know this because the truth does not change, and thus what was condemned as an error in the past does not become a true with the passing of time. Religious liberty and false ecumenism were both condemned by the Church. Therefore we can be certain that they are errors, even if the Pope himself teaches them. Not even the Pope can turn an error into truth.
OP, are you a Catholic? Can’t tell by your public profile. Any how, if you believe what you posted about Pope JP II, Pope Paul VI, the entire hierarchy(I assume under these popes) & Jimmy Akin (all in blue) , I feel very sorry for you. You have a real problem my friend & speaking for needing confession, I advise you to do so ASAP!
Which part of what I said was wrong?
Regarding the old Mass: Paul VI and John Paul II both pretended it was forbidden, and allowed the priests who continued to say it be persecuted. Many who simply asked their Bishop for permission to say the old Mass were sent for counseling, where they endured all kinds of mental abuse.
Since the old Mass was never abrogated, those who pretended it was (including two Popes), and who led others to believe the same, did indeed deceive them. The following is the definition of deception:
Deception: 1. The act of deceiving or misleading. 2. The state of being deceived or misled.
Based on their words and actions of the majority hierarchy (not all, but the majority) many sincere Catholics were in error on that point. The cause of these Catholics being in error were the actions of most of the hierarchy. Therefore, what I said is true.
Point 2: The apologists: Those apologists on the radio defended the mistranslation of the words of consecration. A mistranslation of the words of consecration is not a small matter. These apologists convinced millions of sincere Catholics that the wrong translation was correct. Therefore, point number two that you highlited above was also correct.
Regarding the quote that begines “after 37 years…”, which you highlighted in blue: what I said was factual.
What I wrote might sound shocking, but that is becaue what has happened in the Church over the past 40 years was shocking! Let’s just hope and pray that our new Pope continues on his current path of admitting the truth on these important points.
Contrary to what the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Sacraments under Paul VI said, our new Pope has already come out and said that *pro multis *should be translated as “for many”. Thus, he has taken steps to correct the error that begun under Paul VI and continued under John Paul II. There have been complaints from the Bishops about this ruling, but we’ll see if they obey.
Secondly, Pope Benedict has admitted that the old Mass was never abrogated and Priests do not need any special permission to say it. That in and of itself will do great good for the Church over the coming years, and will certainly play a big part in the restoration.
Like, instead of attacking and asking if Pax is Catholic, and you know he is, and saying he needs to go to confession, why not refute his post?
But not deleted. Good reading there for folks who don’t know about this important issue…
And it had a follow up…
Peace in Christ,
I have read them. That is why I made the comment I did.
As I indicated, many people throw around the term “modernism” for anything they don’t like. The issue of whether or not the EF was abrogated or not was an issue of law and therefore of discipline, not an issue of faith - that is, doctrine. whether it was right or wrong is an issue first of law (and it was determined that it was not abrogated), but secondly an issue of discipline, as to who could or could not say it. In neither case did it have anything to do with doctrinal issues, and thus the charge of “moderninsm” is totally mis-applied. You make my point for me.
- it was not deception; it was a discipline issue; we may agree that the discipline was not correctly applied, or that people whould not have been disciplined the way they were; but that is not an issue of “modernism” in any sense of the word. as a matter of fact it was not allowed; not because it was or was not abrogated, but because the Pope wanted the OF to be the OF. You may not like it; you may not agree with it, but it was within his disciplinary powers. It was also within the disciplinary powers of the Pope (Benedict 16) to allow the EF to be said without the necessity of an indult. Neither is a doctrinal issue.
There is no sin where there is a legitimate question (it had not been ruled on, so it was a legitimate question). Don’t get carried away.
It is not an issue of truth as in doctrinal truth. It is an issue of whether the EF was abroagted or surpressed. It was surpressed, although many felt it was abrogated; in either case it was a disciplinary issue.
You need to pay a little more attention to the whole issue. What the traditionalists also said (some, not all said) was that “for all” went to the validity of the Consecration. It doesn’t. Again, nothing to do with “modernism”
Again, off the issue of “modernism”. The error was not as grevious as you imply. Not correct, but not fatal, either.
Again, an issue with which too many Traditionalists choose not to listen to the Magisterium of the Church about ecumenism, but only to one another. Read, for example, what a person who is considered to be one of the most brilliant theologians in modern times has written about it - none other than Benedict 16.
Please zite your source(s) for this statement; it is thrown around with abandon by all too many slef-styled “traditionalists” as if it were true. Just who is it in the “highest levels” and e3xactly waht is it that they profess? Please site, otherwise, you will find yourself ignored.
However, not every broad and sweeping statement, nor every time-related statement is a complete and absolute encapsulment of total truth.
You are right that truth does not change, but our understanding of truth changes; otherwise we would have no need for all the past Councils of the Church. What people too often don’t understand is that a statemnt of the trugh at one time can appear to be contradictied by a later statement, but is not actually contradictory. Further, some statements are not doctrinal but are disciplinary, and a discipline at one time may give way to a different discipline at another time, as they are not doctrinal statements but rather disciplinary statements.
Modernism is basically the idea that “critical thinking” and “science” are the source of all knowledge where as anything relating to God or the soul are inventions of men (who were too dumb to know any better). This mentality arose especially in the 1800s onward when science and technology were progressing rapidly (and atheism and liberal protestantism were on the rise).
Where is it now? Rather than being “contained” I would argue it is so much a part of our culture most cant even distinguish it from the Truth. Notice how all holidays have been stripped of any religious significance. Notice how anything Christian is open to mockery on both TV and in the “classroom”. Notice how in abortion the human is not seen as above all other animals in regards to its dignity (being made in the image of God) rather the unborn are seen as no different than other animals, or worse yet as “blobs”. Thus when it comes time to “abort” the “conscience” (most would say there is no such thing) is unphased because a “human” didnt get murdered.
Though many liberal “Catholics” will openly deny any given Divine teaching, a more subtle and very active brand operate on the following principle (which was actually condemned):24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves.
LAMENTABILI SANE, St Pius X
These modern day “theologians” and “scholars” operate on this very principal, they will go at lengths to undermine the dogma, but for some reason (;)) insist they believe it because the Church teaches it.
I should not presume of whom you are speaking, so I won’t. However, elswhere in these fora there have been discussions of specific theologians and their work. In at least one circumstance, it was my expeience that the work of the theologian was a scholarly work; that is, it was one that was meant for other theologians and should have stayed inside the “four corners” of a theological journal. It was, however, subsequently published for public consumption, and therein lies the difficulty.
Most people are not trained theologians; in fact , most people are not trained in what is termed “critical thinking”; the ability to understand the parameters of a specific technical question, and the ability to analyze the answer. The net result is that people who are not trained, read such a work and misunderstand the purpose of the paper, the parameters of the question, totally misconstrue the answer, and then charge that he is a heretic, or go off on a tangent presuming that he proved (as if a theologian could “prove”) what he did not (that is, they take a modernist bent to the issue). Some of the very legitimate theologians are charged as being “Modernists” when in fact thay are nothing of the sort; and they are charged with “subtle attacks on doctrine” when they have made no such thing. It is simply a matter that people who do not have the ability to understand theologians post-Doctoral work misconstrue it.
The problem is not that the theologian is a modernist; it is that people reading a scholarly work don’t know how to read it and some go off on a modernist journey. That is not the fault of the theologian. That is a result of living in a wold where communication becomes alsmost instantaneous, and the volume is overwhelming.