Anti-modernism historical context

[Kephapaulos]

How should one oppose the argument put forth by some neo-Catholics that the criticisms of modernism made by popes such as Bl. Pius IX, Leo XIII, and St. Pius X just apply to their historical times and are not the same propositions that would oppose Vatican II? I mean how is it that they say the Church's attitude can "change"? How could one argue against the following pointed out by Dr. Sungenis on a quote from a Vatican II document that supposedly supports Church teaching:

 

Question 152- What Does Vatican II mean by "Means of Salvation"? Part 3

Dear Bob,  

Before I can reply, I'd like you to clarify something for me. I feel like I'm responding to a moving target. Just in what sense do you say Protestant churches are (or can be used as) means of salvation? In the sense that (1) anything, incl. a broken coffeemaker, satanist, atheist, porn magazine, or bent paper clip can be used as a means of salvation? This you seemed to argue before, and partly now also in this latest email. But now you're also arguing, or seem to be arguing, that (2) Protestant churches are (used as) means of salvation inasmuch as they are imperfect instatiations of the Catholic Church -- something that can't be said of broken coffeemakers or satanists (well, not so sure about satanists, since they too believe God exists ;-) ). So which are you arguing? Which of these do you want me to respond to? If the latter, then you are in effect saying that, no, the Catholic Church alone is the means of salvation but this means is sometimes found to an extent in Protestant communities--from which it would follow then that the Holy Ghost does NOT use the Protestant communites (and definitely not "as such") as means of salvation but only the Catholic Church, which somehow happens to be present, to a certain extent, in the Protestant religion. Now we're opening a HUGE can of worms, because we're no longer then talking about what is and can be used as a means of salvation but now about what and where is the Catholic Church.  

So please tell me whether you believe (1) or (2) or maybe both. Thanks.  

Mario

R. Sungenis: Both are true. In fact, what the Protestant knows of Christ could be considered a "means" to lead him to receive Baptism, which is itself a "means" to salvation. The application is fluid. I think the problem here is that you are working with a preconceived idea of what "means" means, but you have no dogmatic proof for your definition. And it's going to be rather difficult for you to confine the definition of "means" to your narrow meaning, since the only official document we have that uses that word in reference to salvation is Vatican II. If you've got an official Catholic document, however, that says "means" is what you understand it to be, then you've got something. Until then, all you've got is an unsubstantiated opinion.

http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/2005/qa-aug-05.htm#Question%20152

[VoxClamantis]

How should one oppose the argument put forth by some neo-Catholics that the criticisms of modernism made by popes such as Bl. Pius IX, Leo XIII, and St. Pius X just apply to their historical times and are not the same propositions that would oppose Vatican II? I mean how is it that they say the Church's attitude can "change"? How could one argue against the following pointed out by Dr. Sungenis on a quote from a Vatican II document that supposedly supports Church teaching: (snip)

 

I don't think Sungenis's understanding of things goes against the understanding of Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X, et. al., and, though I can't speak for Sungenis, I doubt very much that he'd say that "the Church's attitude" has changed. Actual grace exists outside of the Church, even in raw nature, and to believe otherwise is to fall into Jansenism. And as to sanctifying grace, many Protestants have valid Baptism, for ex.

[Kephapaulos]

Actually I was wonderning more how we argue against those who say modernism was only a problem in the time of Bl. Pius IX and successors up to Pius XII.

[Kephapaulos]

It also seems as if NO Catholic "experts" try to explain away the anti-modernist attitude of pre-VII popes as paranoid and being afraid of change.

[Matthew]

Bob misses the mark on this.  The difference between the proposal of Vatican II and older doctrine is this: that what may have happened individually, now happens publicly and corporately.  It is the difference between something that is per se and per accidens.  This is the foundation of the ecclesiology of Vatican II and what John Paul, as Archbishop refered to as the Church "re-defining" her very nature at the Council, in his book 'Sign of Contradiction'.  This has the effect of legitimizing all sects outside the fold of Christ and renders His words in Holy Scripture superfluous: I have sheep whom I must bring into the one fold.  Those who follow actual graces are Christ's lost sheep whom he must bring into His flock.  For He knew that outside the supernatural unity of His Mystical Body, only damnation awaits.  

[VoxClamantis]

Actually I was wonderning more how we argue against those who say modernism was only a problem in the time of Bl. Pius IX and successors up to Pius XII.

 

Ask them to define Modernism.

 

If they can't (and they most likely won't be able to), then ask them how they know it was only a problem up to the time of Pius XII.

 

If they do give a definition, see if it matches up with how the Catholic Encyclopedia defines it below. If their definition does match up, then ask them how these things are not a problem now when it's quite obvious they are. If their definition doesn't match up, then tell them you two are obviously talking about two different things.

 

Excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia on "Modernism":

 

 

The general idea of modernism may be best expressed in the words of Abbate Cavallanti, though even here there is a little vagueness: "Modernism is modern in a false sense of the word; it is a morbid state of conscience among Catholics, and especially young Catholics, that professes manifold ideals, opinions, and tendencies. From time to time these tendencies work out into systems, that are to renew the basis and superstructure of society, politics, philosophy, theology, of the Church herself and of the Christian religion". A remodelling, a renewal according to the ideas of the twentieth century -- such is the longing that possesses the modernists. "The avowed modernists", says M. Loisy, "form a fairly definite group of thinking men united in the common desire to adapt Catholicism to the intellectual, moral and social needs of today" (op. cit., p. 13). "Our religious attitude", as "Il programma dei modernisti" states (p. 5, note l), "is ruled by the single wish to be one with Christians and Catholics who live in harmony with the spirit of the age". The spirit of this plan of reform may be summarized under the following heads:

• A spirit of complete emancipation, tending to weaken ecclesiastical authority; the emancipation of science, which must traverse every field of investigation without fear of conflict with the Church; the emancipation of the State, which should never be hampered by religious authority; the emancipation of the private conscience whose inspirations must not be overridden by papal definitions or anathemas; the emancipation of the universal conscience, with which the Church should be ever in agreement;
   
• A spirit of movement and change, with an inclination to a sweeping form of evolution such as abhors anything fixed and stationary;
   
• A spirit of reconciliation among all men through the feelings of the heart. Many and varied also are the modernist dreams of an understanding between the different Christian religions, nay, even between religion and a species of atheism, and all on a basis of agreement that must be superior to mere doctrinal differences.

Such are the fundamental tendencies. As such, they seek to explain, justify, and strengthen themselves in an error, to which therefore one might give the name of "essential" modernism. What is this error? It is nothing less than the perversion of dogma. Manifold are the degrees and shades of modernist doctrine on the question of our relations with God. But no real modernist keeps the Catholic notions of dogma intact.

[Kephapaulos]

I'm afraid though that some will notice that the Catholic Encyclopedia was published in the early 1900s I think, and so they'll still think the modernist issue is confined to that time and doesn't apply to now, which it truly does. And Matthew, thank you for your input. I was wondering though what you meant by your post, especially where you mention per se and per accidens concerning John Paul II and Vatican II? I mean are you pointing out that the Second Vatican Council forced erroneous personal theological opinions on the Church?

[DominusTecum]

Vox you are a genius... how did you get so good at debate like that? Lots of practice?

 

Ask them what they think happened to modernism... Did it just "dissapear?" It had to have gone somewhere... Point out that while condemnations were constant up to the time of Pius XII, there have been few, if any condemnations of it since. Point out that in the files of the Holy Office, Roncalli (Pope John XXIII) was suspected of modernism. Point out the changes, and ask them to compare pre and post-Vatican II Catholicism, and then compare that to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

 

[Mark]

The general idea of modernism may be best expressed in the words of Abbate Cavallanti, though even here there is a little vagueness: "Modernism is modern in a false sense of the word; it is a morbid state of conscience among Catholics, and especially young Catholics, that professes manifold ideals, opinions, and tendencies. From time to time these tendencies work out into systems, that are to renew the basis and superstructure of society, politics, philosophy, theology, of the Church herself and of the Christian religion". A remodelling, a renewal according to the ideas of the twentieth century -- such is the longing that possesses the modernists. "The avowed modernists", says M. Loisy, "form a fairly definite group of thinking men united in the common desire to adapt Catholicism to the intellectual, moral and social needs of today" (op. cit., p. 13). "Our religious attitude", as "Il programma dei modernisti" states (p. 5, note l), "is ruled by the single wish to be one with Christians and Catholics who live in harmony with the spirit of the age". The spirit of this plan of reform may be summarized under the following heads:  

• A spirit of complete emancipation, tending to weaken ecclesiastical authority; the emancipation of science, which must traverse every field of investigation without fear of conflict with the Church; the emancipation of the State, which should never be hampered by religious authority; the emancipation of the private conscience whose inspirations must not be overridden by papal definitions or anathemas; the emancipation of the universal conscience, with which the Church should be ever in agreement;
   
• A spirit of movement and change, with an inclination to a sweeping form of evolution such as abhors anything fixed and stationary;
   
• A spirit of reconciliation among all men through the feelings of the heart. Many and varied also are the modernist dreams of an understanding between the different Christian religions, nay, even between religion and a species of atheism, and all on a basis of agreement that must be superior to mere doctrinal differences.

Such are the fundamental tendencies. As such, they seek to explain, justify, and strengthen themselves in an error, to which therefore one might give the name of "essential" modernism. What is this error? It is nothing less than the perversion of dogma. Manifold are the degrees and shades of modernist doctrine on the question of our relations with God. But no real modernist keeps the Catholic notions of dogma intact.

 

Quite an accurate description of today..

[Matthew]

 And Matthew, thank you for your input. I was wondering though what you meant by your post, especially where you mention per se and per accidens concerning John Paul II and Vatican II? I mean are you pointing out that the Second Vatican Council forced erroneous personal theological opinions on the Church?

 

Yes, precisely!  What we have here is a theological opinion placed within the texts of the Council and then paraded around afterwards as if it is an established dogma, namely that which concerns ecclesiology i.e. the nature of the Church.  In 'Sign of Contradiction', John Paul stated that the Second Vatican Council managed to "re-define the nature of the Church".  "Define" here is loosely used, for we know that the Council defined no dogma.  Hence, we are left with a theological opinion with little or no weight, for tradition is against the idea that sects, of themselves as sects, procure salvation.  That is where the distinction between per se and per accidens comes into play.  When a thing operates per se, it means that it is "through itself" or "absolutely".  Per accidens means that something is accidental; it operates not of itself, but by circumstance.  Applied to ecclesiology and salvation the novelty is thus: what was once considered accidental now is considered to be formal and absolute.  Sects were once considered evil societies that lead souls to hell, St. Paul called them "sects of perdition"; now they are considered a means of salvation by virtue of whatever truth they may possess.  It is the ecclesiology of the Council that gives legitimacy to these "churches" precisely because they believe that they are formal means to salvation.  Note that this cannot be considered heresy, strictly speaking for it is an exaggeration of truth rather than its direct denial.  Thus Sedevacantists are in serious error.  Does that clarify the matter at all?