| Revision as of 02:45, 2 March 2005 edit67.180.61.179 (talk) inserted comments to help everyone come to a consensus← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:59, 2 March 2005 edit undoJim Henry (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,148 edits clean up HTML comments with bad syntax. Fix some of the wording problems pointed out by 67.180.61.179, cleaning up some redundancy in the first several paragraphsNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Modernism''' was a term used by ] to describe the doctrines of a group of theologians (chiefly ] and ]): the assumption that the Christian Church and its dogma are human institutions that have evolved in time like other institutions, which are expressed in human documents that bear the character of their historical context, which can be profitably analyzed in just the way all institutions and texts are scrutinized. It should be noted that none of the Catholic "modernists" used this label for their own writings, nor did they see themselves as a unified group: the term "modernist" was applied to them. | |||
| <--"To the outside observer? What does this mean exactly. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that the term "modernist" used to describe certain Catholic theologians and Clergy was invented by other Catholic theologians and clergymen. Now, from what I understand about how those people defined it, they were really applying a name to a series of interelated ideas that became popular at the time within the catholic church (ideas mostly from without), and which were fundamentally rationalized as being ok by the idea of dogmas "evolving" or constantly being updated)--> | |||
| ⚫ | In his encyclical ''Lamentabili Sane'' of July ], Pius X described '''Modernism''' as not so much a ], as the synthesis of all heresies. This description was used not because Modernism combined ideas from many earlier heresies, but because it undermined Catholic doctrine in a more fundamental way than most earlier heresies: instead of critiquing particular points of doctrine, or setting up a competing source of authority, it denied the idea of objective unchanging truth or any authoritative teaching. Modernism involved the ] of dogma — a notion distinct from ]'s teaching on the "]", an unfolding in time of what was already implicit in ]'s initial teaching. In stating the Modernist view on evolution of dogma in order to condemn it, Pius X expressed this as: "Truth is no more unchangeable than man himself, for it evolves with him, in him and through him" (''Lamentabili sane''). | ||
| '''Modernism''' is, according to the teachings of the ], not so much a ], as the synthesis of all heresies. Thus at least it was expressed when first condemned in July ] by ] in the encyclical ''Lamentabili Sane'', which a modern historian of the '''Modernist crisis''' attributes to ] (1860-1923), the procurator in Rome of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (O'Connell 1994). In 1910 the ] was imposed on candidates for ordination, and remained in force until it was abolished by ] in 1967. | |||
| <--I think we should make clear that I don't think Pius the X intended to say that modernism was the "synthesis of all hersies" because it attempted to combine all heresies (for example a super-heresy which said that matter was evil, jesus wasn't human, jesus wasn't divine, the bible is the only source of truth, the bible isn't divinely inspired), but rather, as the article explains further down, that the evolution of the dogmas paridigm allowed someone to hold all of those ideas at different times and be correct, and not outside of the church--> | |||
| In some respects, the Catholic Modernists seemed to be influenced by or in agreement with certain ] theologians and clergy, starting with the ] in the mid-19th century. Some, however, such as George Tyrell, disagreed strongly with this analogy; Tyrell saw himself as loyal to the unity of the Church, and disliked liberal Protestantism (Hales 1958). | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| <--This is a somewhat better definition, except for the fact that for most of those described as modernist, they didn't simply deny all defined church dogmas, but mostly were contraversial for certain specific things which were popular at the time, such as rationalistic biblical criticism, kantian philosophical systems, etc. In addition simply eluding to Newman's idea of the "development of doctrine" makes it hard for a newbie reader to understand what that means, he has to read that article to understand the difference)--> | |||
| The Modernist crisis took place chiefly in French and British intellectual Catholic circles, to a lesser extent in Italy, and virtually nowhere else. | |||
| <--This is sort of a warped, possily non NPOV version of what I had written before. "catholic thinkers joining protestant theologians?". But the phrase "the crisis took place chiefly . . ." is very hard to defend from my standpoint. There are two elements, there are the places which modernism was a point of contention, which might be those limited countries, and there are places where modernistic ideas or memes spread throughout semenaries, theologians, clergy, or laity, which would be far wider (although in these places it didn't attract contraversy)--> | |||
| Modernism in the Catholic Church might be |
Modernism in the Catholic Church might be described under the following broad headings: | ||
| *'''Textual Criticism of the ].''' In other words, attempting to reevalute the meaning of the Bible by focusing on the text alone and ignoring what others have historically taught about it, especially with the assumption that the ]s described within couldn't possibly have happened, and attempting to piece together what really happened and why the writers might have written about what they did. This way of looking at the Bible became quite popular in the Protestant churches and found its way into Catholic churches. It was an offshoot of the concept of ], since that doctrine asserts an individual's ability to learn all that is necessary regarding religion by reading the Bible alone. | *'''Textual Criticism of the ].''' In other words, attempting to reevalute the meaning of the Bible by focusing on the text alone and ignoring what others have historically taught about it, especially with the assumption that the ]s described within couldn't possibly have happened, and attempting to piece together what really happened and why the writers might have written about what they did. This way of looking at the Bible became quite popular in the Protestant churches and found its way into Catholic churches. It was an offshoot of the concept of ], since that doctrine asserts an individual's ability to learn all that is necessary regarding religion by reading the Bible alone. | ||
| *'''] and other ] ideals.''' The ideal of secularism can be briefly summarised as holding that the best course of action in politics and other civic fields is that which flows from disparate groups' and religions' common understanding of the "good". By implication, Church and State should be separated, and the laws of the state should generally only cover the "common ground" of beliefs between the various religious groups that might be present — for example the prohibition of murder, etc. From the secularists' point of view, it was possible to distinguish between political ideas and structures that were religious and those that were not. Catholic theologians in the mainstream argued that such a distinction was not possible |
*'''] and other ] ideals.''' The ideal of secularism can be briefly summarised as holding that the best course of action in politics and other civic fields is that which flows from disparate groups' and religions' common understanding of the "good". By implication, Church and State should be separated, and the laws of the state should generally only cover the "common ground" of beliefs between the various religious groups that might be present — for example the prohibition of murder, etc. From the secularists' point of view, it was possible to distinguish between political ideas and structures that were religious and those that were not. Catholic theologians in the mainstream argued that such a distinction was not possible, that all aspects of society had to be organized with the final goal of ] in mind. <!--Catholic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas have always had this view--> This was a direct counter to the thread of ] that had been in the forefront of intellectual thought since the ] and the ]. The roots of secularism they traced to those English philosophers who attempted to create a "universal religion" based on the "common denominator" of all other religions; it was largely spread through the secret societies of the Enlightenment, including the ]s, the ], and the ], and its greatest threat, in the writings of this school, was the spectre of ]. | ||
| *'''Modern ] systems.''' Philosophers such as ]'s and ] inspired the mainstream of Modernist thought. One of the main currents was the attempt to synthesize the ]/]/] and other features of certain modern systems of philosophy with Catholicism, in much the same way the Scholastics earlier attempted to synthesize ] and ] philosophy with Catholicism. | *'''Modern ] systems.''' Philosophers such as ]'s and ] inspired the mainstream of Modernist thought. One of the main currents was the attempt to synthesize the ]/]/] and other features of certain modern systems of philosophy with Catholicism, in much the same way the Scholastics earlier attempted to synthesize ] and ] philosophy with Catholicism. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 21: | ||
| == Evolution of dogmas == | == Evolution of dogmas == | ||
| The final overall teaching of Modernism, is that dogmas (what is taught by the Church and what its members are required to believe) can evolve over time, rather |
The final overall teaching of Modernism, is that dogmas (what is taught by the Church and what its members are required to believe) can evolve over time, rather than being the same for all time. This aspect of thought was what made Modernism unique in the history of ] in the Church. Previously, a heretic (someone who believed and taught something different than what the rest of the church believed) would either claim that he was right and the rest of the church was wrong because he had received a new revelation from God, or that he had understood the true teaching of God which was previously understood but then lost. Both of those scenarios almost necessarily led to an organizational separation away from the Church (]) or the offender being ejected from the Church (]). With this new idea that doctrines evolve, it was possible for the modernist to believe that the old teachings of the Church ''and'' his new seemingly contradictory teachings were both correct — each had their time and place. This system allows almost any type of new belief that the modernist might want to introduce, and for this reason Modernism was labelled the "synthesis of all heresies" by Pope Pius X. | ||
| == Social/Anthropological causes of Modernism == | == Social/Anthropological causes of Modernism == | ||
| Line 39: | Line 35: | ||
| == Church officials' responses to Modernism == | == Church officials' responses to Modernism == | ||
| In 1893, ]'s encyclical ''Providentissimus Deus'' seemed to give encouragement to these progressive studies |
In 1893, ]'s encyclical '']'' seemed to give encouragement to these progressive studies, affirming in principle the legitimacy of Biblical studies, but limited to those pursued in a spirit of faith, which was a discreet warning that the opposing forces within Catholicism were already drawn up. ''Providentissimus Deus'' may be considered the opening shot in the battle. In 1903 Leo established a Pontifical Biblical Commission to oversee those studies and ensure that they were conducted with respect for the Catholic doctrines on the inspiration and interpretation of scripture. | ||
| Pope Pius X, who succeeded Leo, was the first to identify Modernism as a movement. He frequently condemned both its aims and ideas, and was deeply concerned by the ability of Modernism to allow its adherents to believe themselves strict Catholics while having a markedly different belief as to what that meant (a consequence of the notion of evolution of dogma). In July 1907 he published the encyclical ''Lamentabili Sane'', a sweeping condemnation which distinguished sixty-five propositions as a Modernist Heresy. In September of the same year, he promulgated an encyclical ''Pascendi dominici gregis'' which enjoined a compulsory ] on all Catholic bishops, priests and teachers to force them to come to clear terms with what they believed. He also, more controversially, introduced a secret society called the |
Pope St. Pius X, who succeeded Leo, was the first to identify Modernism as a movement. He frequently condemned both its aims and ideas, and was deeply concerned by the ability of Modernism to allow its adherents to believe themselves strict Catholics while having a markedly different belief as to what that meant (a consequence of the notion of evolution of dogma). In July 1907 he published the encyclical ''Lamentabili Sane'', a sweeping condemnation which distinguished sixty-five propositions as a Modernist Heresy. In September of the same year, he promulgated an encyclical ''Pascendi dominici gregis'' which enjoined a compulsory ] on all Catholic bishops, priests and teachers to force them to come to clear terms with what they believed; this oath remained in force until it was abolished by ] in 1967. He also, more controversially, introduced a secret society called the ] to spy on ] to see if Modernism was being taught in them. <!-- A quick Google search suggests this statement is misleading or maybe outright wrong; will do more research. (Jim Henry) --><!--I got this from the book "Hitler's Pope" and from some critical non-Catholic books originally published in France about Pius X. (67.180.61.179) --> | ||
| Modernism continues to be condemned by the Church hierarchy, with ] and others having done much in recent decades to prevent its spread. It is generally accepted that measures taken under Pope Pius X led in several cases to injustices being perpetrated against ] Catholics, and the structures of ecclesial ] which characterised his period in office have long since disappeared. | Modernism continues to be condemned by the Church hierarchy, with ] and others having done much in recent decades to prevent its spread. It is generally accepted that measures taken under Pope Pius X led in several cases to injustices being perpetrated against ] Catholics, and the structures of ecclesial ] which characterised his period in office have long since disappeared. | ||
| Line 73: | Line 69: | ||
| *O'Connell, Marvin, ''Critics on Trial : An Introduction to the Catholic Modernist Crisis,'' Catholic University of America Press, Washington DC, 1994. | *O'Connell, Marvin, ''Critics on Trial : An Introduction to the Catholic Modernist Crisis,'' Catholic University of America Press, Washington DC, 1994. | ||
| * ''The Catholic Church in the Modern World'' by ] (Doubleday, 1958) | * ''The Catholic Church in the Modern World'' by ] (Doubleday, 1958) | ||
| <!-- need to figure out where to put this digression: | |||
| A modern historian of the '''Modernist crisis''' attributes ''Lamentabili Sane'' to ] (1860-1923), the procurator in Rome of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (O'Connell 1994). --> | |||
Revision as of 19:59, 2 March 2005
Modernism was a term used by Pope Pius X to describe the doctrines of a group of theologians (chiefly Alfred Loisy and George Tyrell): the assumption that the Christian Church and its dogma are human institutions that have evolved in time like other institutions, which are expressed in human documents that bear the character of their historical context, which can be profitably analyzed in just the way all institutions and texts are scrutinized. It should be noted that none of the Catholic "modernists" used this label for their own writings, nor did they see themselves as a unified group: the term "modernist" was applied to them.
In his encyclical Lamentabili Sane of July 1907, Pius X described Modernism as not so much a heresy, as the synthesis of all heresies. This description was used not because Modernism combined ideas from many earlier heresies, but because it undermined Catholic doctrine in a more fundamental way than most earlier heresies: instead of critiquing particular points of doctrine, or setting up a competing source of authority, it denied the idea of objective unchanging truth or any authoritative teaching. Modernism involved the evolution of dogma — a notion distinct from Cardinal Newman's teaching on the "development of doctrine", an unfolding in time of what was already implicit in Christ's initial teaching. In stating the Modernist view on evolution of dogma in order to condemn it, Pius X expressed this as: "Truth is no more unchangeable than man himself, for it evolves with him, in him and through him" (Lamentabili sane).
In some respects, the Catholic Modernists seemed to be influenced by or in agreement with certain Protestant theologians and clergy, starting with the Tübingen school in the mid-19th century. Some, however, such as George Tyrell, disagreed strongly with this analogy; Tyrell saw himself as loyal to the unity of the Church, and disliked liberal Protestantism (Hales 1958).
The Modernist crisis took place chiefly in French and British intellectual Catholic circles, to a lesser extent in Italy, and virtually nowhere else.
Modernism in the Catholic Church might be described under the following broad headings:
- Textual Criticism of the Bible. In other words, attempting to reevalute the meaning of the Bible by focusing on the text alone and ignoring what others have historically taught about it, especially with the assumption that the miracles described within couldn't possibly have happened, and attempting to piece together what really happened and why the writers might have written about what they did. This way of looking at the Bible became quite popular in the Protestant churches and found its way into Catholic churches. It was an offshoot of the concept of sola scriptura, since that doctrine asserts an individual's ability to learn all that is necessary regarding religion by reading the Bible alone.
- Secularism and other Enlightenment ideals. The ideal of secularism can be briefly summarised as holding that the best course of action in politics and other civic fields is that which flows from disparate groups' and religions' common understanding of the "good". By implication, Church and State should be separated, and the laws of the state should generally only cover the "common ground" of beliefs between the various religious groups that might be present — for example the prohibition of murder, etc. From the secularists' point of view, it was possible to distinguish between political ideas and structures that were religious and those that were not. Catholic theologians in the mainstream argued that such a distinction was not possible, that all aspects of society had to be organized with the final goal of heaven in mind. This was a direct counter to the thread of Humanism that had been in the forefront of intellectual thought since the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution. The roots of secularism they traced to those English philosophers who attempted to create a "universal religion" based on the "common denominator" of all other religions; it was largely spread through the secret societies of the Enlightenment, including the Freemasons, the Illuminati, and the Carbonari, and its greatest threat, in the writings of this school, was the spectre of Democracy.
- Modern philosophical systems. Philosophers such as Kant's and Henri Bergson inspired the mainstream of Modernist thought. One of the main currents was the attempt to synthesize the vocabularies/epistemologies/metaphysics and other features of certain modern systems of philosophy with Catholicism, in much the same way the Scholastics earlier attempted to synthesize Platonic and Aristotlean philosophy with Catholicism.
The combination of these three currents usually led to other conclusions which were common in various streams of progressive thinking that was characterized as Modernism:
- That religion is primarily a matter of irrational emotions. As more dispassionate and detailed studies of history appeared, a sense of historicism suggested that ideas are generally so conditioned by the age in which that they are expressed; thus modernists generally believed that most dogmas or teachings of the Church were novelties which arose because of specific historical circumstances throughout the history of the Church. Rationalism and textual criticism downplayed the possible role of the miraculous, and the philosophical systems in vogue at the time taught that the existence of God and other things could never be known (see Agnosticism). Theology, formerly the "queen of the sciences" was dethroned. (Wilkinson 2002) So it was argued that religion must be primarily caused and centered on the feelings of believers. This bolsters the claims of secularism in weakening any position that supported favoring one religion over the other in the state (since if there isn't a very scientific and reasonable assumption that one's religion is right, it would be a much safer route to organize society based on the assumption that no particular religion is right).
Evolution of dogmas
The final overall teaching of Modernism, is that dogmas (what is taught by the Church and what its members are required to believe) can evolve over time, rather than being the same for all time. This aspect of thought was what made Modernism unique in the history of heresies in the Church. Previously, a heretic (someone who believed and taught something different than what the rest of the church believed) would either claim that he was right and the rest of the church was wrong because he had received a new revelation from God, or that he had understood the true teaching of God which was previously understood but then lost. Both of those scenarios almost necessarily led to an organizational separation away from the Church (schism) or the offender being ejected from the Church (excommunication). With this new idea that doctrines evolve, it was possible for the modernist to believe that the old teachings of the Church and his new seemingly contradictory teachings were both correct — each had their time and place. This system allows almost any type of new belief that the modernist might want to introduce, and for this reason Modernism was labelled the "synthesis of all heresies" by Pope Pius X.
Social/Anthropological causes of Modernism
Catholic historians and theologians have social explanations as to why Modernism developed as it did and became so popular:
- Working with the modern philosophical systems was popular. It allowed theologians to work with non-Catholic philosopher contemporaries, and not to be looked down upon as "ancient" for their frequently exclusively Scholastic philosophy.
- In the Americas, especially in the United States, priests, bishops and theologians were surrounded by a culture and laity committed to the concept of secularism. Anti-Catholic uprisings during the colonial period and later caused a desire for priests and bishops to "fit in" and to "prove their loyality to the American way". Embarrassing documents such as the Syllabus of Errors (which condemned freedom of religion and separation of church and state) were largely ignored by these priests and bishops. The modernistic trend of injecting secular values into Catholicism itself would allow for a much smoother relationship in these areas. Also, some argue, the downplaying of the doctrines taught by the Church contrary to American culture led them to be virtually unknown by succeeding generations of Catholics, causing newly ordained priests and bishops to almost automatically have secularist beliefs.
- The evolution of dogmas theory, much like certain interpretations of being saved sola fide ("by faith alone"), allows for a constant updating (critics would say "loosening") of standards of morality. As moral standards shifted heavily during the 20th century, previously a Catholic would have had to deny his faith to engage in some of the actions of his contemporaries. Now, citing that dogmas can change, it was possible to "update" Catholic morality while not being concerned with possible contradictions.
Church officials' responses to Modernism
In 1893, Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissimus Deus seemed to give encouragement to these progressive studies, affirming in principle the legitimacy of Biblical studies, but limited to those pursued in a spirit of faith, which was a discreet warning that the opposing forces within Catholicism were already drawn up. Providentissimus Deus may be considered the opening shot in the battle. In 1903 Leo established a Pontifical Biblical Commission to oversee those studies and ensure that they were conducted with respect for the Catholic doctrines on the inspiration and interpretation of scripture.
Pope St. Pius X, who succeeded Leo, was the first to identify Modernism as a movement. He frequently condemned both its aims and ideas, and was deeply concerned by the ability of Modernism to allow its adherents to believe themselves strict Catholics while having a markedly different belief as to what that meant (a consequence of the notion of evolution of dogma). In July 1907 he published the encyclical Lamentabili Sane, a sweeping condemnation which distinguished sixty-five propositions as a Modernist Heresy. In September of the same year, he promulgated an encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis which enjoined a compulsory Anti-Modernist oath on all Catholic bishops, priests and teachers to force them to come to clear terms with what they believed; this oath remained in force until it was abolished by Paul VI in 1967. He also, more controversially, introduced a secret society called the Sodalitium Pianum to spy on seminaries to see if Modernism was being taught in them.
Modernism continues to be condemned by the Church hierarchy, with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and others having done much in recent decades to prevent its spread. It is generally accepted that measures taken under Pope Pius X led in several cases to injustices being perpetrated against orthodox Catholics, and the structures of ecclesial espionage which characterised his period in office have long since disappeared.
Some Catholic Modernists
Major figures
- Alfred Loisy (1857-1940), whose L'Évangile et L'Église (1902)sparked the crisis
- George Tyrell (1861-1909)
- Maurice Blondel (1861-1949), philosopher and apologist
Other, less public modernists
- Louis Duchesne, historian of the Church
- Henri Bremond
- Friedrich von Hügel
Suspected of Modernism
- Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855-1938), founder of the École Biblique in Jerusalem
- Lucien Laberthonierre
- Pierre Batiffol (1861-1929), historian of dogma
External links
- Providentissimus Deus, Leo XIII, 18 November, 1893
- Lamentabili sane, Pius X, ], 1907
- Pascendi Dominici gregis, Pius X, ], 1907
- International Catholic University: James Hitchcock, "Introduction to Modernism": Essays with bibliography arranged by subjects, headed "Note: Most of the works dealing with Modernism are sympathetic to the Modernists, and students should maintain a critical stance towards the assigned readings."
- Fr. Michael Morton, "Catholic Modernism (1896-1914)"
- A. Vermeersch, "Modernism" in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1911)
References
- Jodock, Darrell, editor, Catholicism Contending with Modernity Cambridge University Press, 2000 .
- O'Connell, Marvin, Critics on Trial : An Introduction to the Catholic Modernist Crisis, Catholic University of America Press, Washington DC, 1994. Reviewed by Fr. John Parsons
- The Catholic Church in the Modern World by E.E.Y. Hales (Doubleday, 1958)