| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Antonio A
Maryhead
825 Posts |
 Posted - Jun 08 2008 : 02:10:56 AM
|
In these last weeks I’ve explained to the kids, in teenage language, Pascendi Dominici Gregis of St. Pius X and why the encyclical against Modernism was so controversial when it was issued at the beginning of the 20th century. It was not easy to deal with the subject because I had to explain that by “Modernism” the Pope was not speaking about trains and street lights or even the invention of the phone or the invention of the telegraph, but the introduction in theological circles of a way of thinking quite detrimental to the faith of the Church.
Well, now that I’m on vacation I have read more about the encyclical in order to learn more about it, and on the pages of J. Derek Holmes’ and Bernard W. Bickers’ “A Short History of the Catholic Church,” I found this statement which is popular among those who rejected the encyclical as pure hyperbole from St. Pius X, “Pascendi attempted to describe the typical Modernist as apologist and reformer, theologian and philosopher, historian and scripture scholar. The ‘doctrines’ and philosophy and historiography were found to contradict the doctrines of the Church and to lead to agnosticism and phenomenalism, immanentism and symbolism and so to pantheism or atheism. In this sense, Pascendi gave form to a heresy which as outlined did not exist and assembled as a whole what no single individual had ever held.” (A Short History of the Catholic Church, page 255.) Till today those Catholics who are critical of the encyclical claim that the encyclical attacked a ghost problem, a non-existent problem that no theologian held at that moment in history. We must then presume the Curia and the Pope saw a problem in theological circles that really didn’t exist.
It is interesting to note that Sandro Magister, just last year, on the 100 anniversary of Pascendi quotes Jesuit historian Giovanni Sale stating the following about Pascendi, “its excessively “doctrinaire” structure, its excessively “harsh and censorious” tone, and its “excessively fundamentalist and hard-line” application.” Wow! Not exactly a ringing endorsement of an encyclical issued by a saint! However, in the judgment of Fr. Enrico Rosa, also a Jesuit, Modernism “was a new form of Christianity that threatened to overwhelm the ancient one.” To oppose it, it had to be struck at its philosophical root, the error from which sprung all the other errors in theology, morality, culture, and practical life. The fundamental error attributed to the modernists was that of denying the capacity of reason to know the truth, thereby reducing everything-including religion, and including Christianity - to subjective experience.” I have said it many times, “isn’t that exactly what is happening in our Church today?” If so, how can Modernism be dead today?
Fr. Corrado Pizziolo, professor of theology and Vicar general in Treviso, the diocese of the birthplace of Saint Pius X, expresses himself in “Avvenire” and of Pascendi he wrote, “The condemnation decreed by the anti-modernist Magisterium does not concern scientific exegesis as such, but the declared opposition, as held by modernism, between faith and history, between theological exegesis and scientific exegesis.” This opposition “continues to present itself today as a question that must be taken into account. There is no other way to explain why, one hundred years later, Benedict XVI would dedicate the foreword of his recent book on Jesus of Nazareth to recalling the value and limitations of the historical-critical method, insisting on the need for a scientific exegesis illuminated by faith.”
In conclusion, I do believe that Modernism was alive and well in many Catholic theological circles and in universities and the Magisterium attacked a real problem, not a fantasy. Furthermore, I still believe Modernism is alive and well in our Church, although it rears its ugly head under other labels. It is in this sense that I continue to think of St. Pius X was a “prophetic” Pope.
Well, any reactions, comments, etc?
Antonio A. Obregón
|
|
|
stevhep
Mary's Servant
United Kingdom
280 Posts |
Posted - Jun 08 2008 : 02:57:29 AM
|
It might be helpful to view the whole thing in relation to the oath against Modernism from this same Pope http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm
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.
Before all things and above all things,
care must be taken of the sick,
so that they will be served as if they were Christ in person;
for He Himself said, "I was sick, and you visited Me" and, "What you did for one of these least ones, you did for Me"
St Benedict |
 |
|
|
Antonio A
Maryhead
825 Posts |
Posted - Jun 08 2008 : 3:22:50 PM
|
Hi Stevhep,
Thank you for providing for us the words of the oath. I really find them beautiful and so utterly clear as to what we are suppose to believe as Catholics.
Indeed one should read the oath and also read Pascendi, but I would say one has to read Pascendi Dominici Gregis with a theological and a philosophical dictionary to be able to understand the depth of the encyclical.
Frankly, I am surprised anyone gave me a reply on this issue given that most lay Catholics I know stay away from heavy theological issues for reasons unknown to me.
I'm curious, do you agree with Giovanni Sale's assessment of the encyclical, that it is excessively doctrinaire in its structure, that it has a harsh and censorious tone, etc?
Do you agree or disagree that relativism today is an expression of the very Modernism Pascendi condemned?
Antonio A. Obregón |
Edited by - Antonio A on Jun 08 2008 3:24:47 PM |
|
|
|
stevhep
Mary's Servant
United Kingdom
280 Posts |
Posted - Jun 08 2008 : 6:05:58 PM
|
My very thought on rereading the oath was that the modernism and subjectivism of a century ago was the progenitor of today's relativism. The one flows inevitably from the other. It is all about the sin of pride. Essentially one chooses which facts to believe and allows others to choose which facts they would like to believe, everyone being their own Pope so to speak. That way ultimately the only thing people really end up believing in is their own desires.
I think the encyclical is pointing to this when it says-
From this, Venerable Brethren, springs that most absurd tenet of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. It is thus that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. From this they derive the law laid down as the universal standard, according to which religious consciousness is to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and that to it all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in the capacity of teacher, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred liturgy or discipline.
Which is more or less what Cardinal Ratzinger was saying at the mass during the Conclave,
To have a clear faith, according to the creed of the Church, is often labeled as fundamentalism. While relativism, that is, allowing oneself to be carried about with every wind of "doctrine," seems to be the only attitude that is fashionable. A dictatorship of relativism is being constituted that recognizes nothing as absolute and which only leaves the "I" and its whims as the ultimate measure.
He went on to say-
We have another measure: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. "Adult" is not a faith that follows the waves in fashion and the latest novelty. Adult and mature is a faith profoundly rooted in friendship with Christ. This friendship opens us to all that is good and gives us the measure to discern between what is true and what is false, between deceit and truth.
Returning to the encyclical this could be a description of contemporary theological circles-
When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that renders them redoubtable, they seek to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack. This policy towards Catholics is the more invidious in that they belaud with admiration which knows no bounds the writers who range themselves on their side, hailing their works, exuding novelty in every page, with a chorus of applause. For them the scholarship of a writer is in direct proportion to the recklessness of his attacks on antiquity, and of his efforts to undermine tradition and the ecclesiastical magisterium. When one of their number falls under the condemnations of the Church the rest of them, to the disgust of good Catholics, gather round him, loudly and publicly applaud him, and hold him up in veneration as almost a martyr for truth. The young, excited and confused by all this clamor of praise and abuse, some of them afraid of being branded as ignorant, others ambitious to rank among the learned, and both classes goaded internally by curiosity and pride, not infrequently surrender and give themselves up to Modernism.
The encyclical has indeed a harsh and censorious tone but is that always a bad thing?
Before all things and above all things,
care must be taken of the sick,
so that they will be served as if they were Christ in person;
for He Himself said, "I was sick, and you visited Me" and, "What you did for one of these least ones, you did for Me"
St Benedict |
|
|
|
Antonio A
Maryhead
825 Posts |
Posted - Jun 09 2008 : 01:05:26 AM
|
Stevhep,
This might be the very first time when we completely agree on an issue but since it is late here in California, I will give you a reply tomorrow!
Antonio A. Obregón |
Edited by - Antonio A on Jun 09 2008 01:06:11 AM |
|
|
|
Antonio A
Maryhead
825 Posts |
Posted - Jun 12 2008 : 12:42:19 AM
|
Hi Stevhep,
"My very thought on rereading the oath was that the modernism and subjectivism of a century ago was the progenitor of today's relativism."
I agree.
The one flows inevitably from the other. It is all about the sin of pride. Essentially one chooses which facts to believe and allows others to choose which facts they would like to believe, everyone being their own Pope so to speak. That way ultimately the only thing people really end up believing in is their own desires."
I agree.
I think the encyclical is pointing to this when it says-
From this, Venerable Brethren, springs that most absurd tenet of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. It is thus that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. From this they derive the law laid down as the universal standard, according to which religious consciousness is to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and that to it all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in the capacity of teacher, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred liturgy or discipline.
Although I know some theologians today express this idea, a particular name does not come to mind. If you know of a particular theologian could you provide the name.
Which is more or less what Cardinal Ratzinger was saying at the mass during the Conclave,
I agree and many, unfortunately never read or heard his words on that occasion.
To have a clear faith, according to the creed of the Church, is often labeled as fundamentalism. While relativism, that is, allowing oneself to be carried about with every wind of "doctrine," seems to be the only attitude that is fashionable. A dictatorship of relativism is being constituted that recognizes nothing as absolute and which only leaves the "I" and its whims as the ultimate measure.
He went on to say-
We have another measure: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. "Adult" is not a faith that follows the waves in fashion and the latest novelty. Adult and mature is a faith profoundly rooted in friendship with Christ. This friendship opens us to all that is good and gives us the measure to discern between what is true and what is false, between deceit and truth.
On this last sentence someone could say, what does a Jew or a Muslim do in this case since there is no friendship with Christ, not even a passing knowledge of Him and His teachings?
Returning to the encyclical this could be a description of contemporary theological circles-
When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that renders them redoubtable, they seek to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack. This policy towards Catholics is the more invidious in that they be laud with admiration which knows no bounds the writers who range themselves on their side, hailing their works, exuding novelty in every page, with a chorus of applause. For them the scholarship of a writer is in direct proportion to the recklessness of his attacks on antiquity, and of his efforts to undermine tradition and the ecclesiastical magisterium. When one of their number falls under the condemnations of the Church the rest of them, to the disgust of good Catholics, gather round him, loudly and publicly applaud him, and hold him up in veneration as almost a martyr for truth. The young, excited and confused by all this clamor of praise and abuse, some of them afraid of being branded as ignorant, others ambitious to rank among the learned, and both classes goaded internally by curiosity and pride, not infrequently surrender and give themselves up to Modernism.
Two things about these: "When one of their number falls under the condemnations of the Church the rest of them, to the disgust of good Catholics, gather round him, loudly and publicly applaud him, and hold him up in veneration as almost a martyr for truth."
This is very true and that's how the media, including "Catholic" media reacts when Rome states it is unhappy with a particular theologian because of the errors found in what he has written, but the second part about the young is harder for me to comprehend because my experience with young people, in general, is that they are utterly ignorant of what any theologian is expressing or of what the Pope has actually said in Rome, whether in 1908 or today, in 2008!
The encyclical has indeed a harsh and censorious tone but is that always a bad thing?
No, I don't find it a bad thing at all, but then you know that is the tone I usually use in writing.
Antonio A. Obregón |
|
|
|
stevhep
Mary's Servant
United Kingdom
280 Posts |
Posted - Jun 12 2008 : 05:06:08 AM
|
quote:
We have another measure: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. "Adult" is not a faith that follows the waves in fashion and the latest novelty. Adult and mature is a faith profoundly rooted in friendship with Christ. This friendship opens us to all that is good and gives us the measure to discern between what is true and what is false, between deceit and truth.
On this last sentence someone could say, what does a Jew or a Muslim do in this case since there is no friendship with Christ, not even a passing knowledge of Him and His teachings?
The obvious and best answer would be to convert to Christianity. A second best option would be to cling to those elements of Wisdom found within those traditions.
Wisdom 6
13 Wisdom is glorious, and never fadeth away, and is easily seen by them that love her, and is found by them that seek her.
14 She preventeth them that covet her, so that she first showeth herself unto them.
15 He that awaketh early to seek her, shall not labour: for he shall find her sitting at his door.
16 To think therefore upon her, is perfect understanding: and he that watcheth for her, shall quickly be secure.
17 For she goeth about seeking such as are worthy of her, and she showeth herself to them cheerfully in the ways, and meeteth them with all providence.
18 For the beginning of her is the most true desire of discipline.
19 And the care of discipline is love: and love is the keeping of her laws: and the keeping of her laws is the firm foundation of incorruption:
20 And incorruption bringeth near to God.
21 Therefore the desire of wisdom bringeth to the everlasting kingdom.
One can have a relation of friendship with Wisdom- Sophia, if one seeks her and is humble of heart.
quote:
The encyclical has indeed a harsh and censorious tone but is that always a bad thing?
No, I don't find it a bad thing at all, but then you know that is the tone I usually use in writing.
Sometimes gentleness is the right way and sometimes not. That too is Wisdom.
Before all things and above all things,
care must be taken of the sick,
so that they will be served as if they were Christ in person;
for He Himself said, "I was sick, and you visited Me" and, "What you did for one of these least ones, you did for Me"
St Benedict |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Pascendi Dominici Gregis & Modernism
