Vatican Ii Embraced Modernism

[mortify ii]

In a talk delivered at the University of Dallas (October 26th, 2013), Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga said :

 

"The Second Vatican Council was the main event in the Church in the 20th Century. In principle, it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council. On the contrary: neither the world is the realm of evil and sin –these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II—nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue. Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person. The Vatican II Council officially acknowledged that things had changed, and captured the need for such a change in its Documents"

 

Cardinal Maradiaga is one of the eight Cardinals chosen by Pope Francis to head the charge of reforming the Curia. A continuity with the Church of past and present was once always assured, but now a high-ranking Cardinal admits rather brazenly that indeed, Vatican II overturned the Church's stance on Modernism, the Synthesis of all Heresies as Pope Pius put it. 

 

Interesting times we live in. 

Edited January 26, 2014 by mortify ii

[NotreDame]

This is one of those things where modernism means a lot of different things to different people.  At UD (with tons of philosophy majors) they hear "modernist" and probably immediately think 'Descarte.'   How would you and others define modernism and how do you think the Cardinal was using the term?

[mortify ii]

This is one of those things where modernism means a lot of different things to different people.  At UD (with tons of philosophy majors) they hear "modernist" and probably immediately think 'Descarte.'   How would you and others define modernism and how do you think the Cardinal was using the term?

 

The modernism the Cardinal refers to is the modernism that was condemned in the First Vatican Council. In other words, what was called the Synthesis of all Heresies and was condemned numerous times by numerous Popes. 

[mortify ii]

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

[arfink]

The modernism the Cardinal refers to is the modernism that was condemned in the First Vatican Council. In other words, what was called the Synthesis of all Heresies and was condemned numerous times by numerous Popes. 

 

That's not actually all that helpful... honestly, it's not. That definition is too nebulous for a philosopher anyway.

[mortify ii]

That's not actually all that helpful... honestly, it's not. That definition is too nebulous for a philosopher anyway.

 

If anyone wants to learn about Modernism, which has been called the synthesis of heresies, they can read Pope Pius' famous encyclical Pascendi which I link to above.

[mortify ii]

I'm actually surprised no one is troubled by this Cardinal's statement. 

[NotreDame]

If anyone wants to learn about Modernism, which has been called the synthesis of heresies, they can read Pope Pius' famous encyclical Pascendi which I link to above.

 

I do want to read that encyclical and more to get more background on what "modernism" means in that sense.  I'm still of the mind that Modernism probably means different things to different people, granting that it might have a specific meaning from a Catholic theological pov.  I don't think I'll get around to it this week though :-/

 

Hopefully this thread hangs around long enough.  I'd rather it not be a debate as much as an oppty to fill in some of these gaps. 

 

I'm actually surprised no one is troubled by this Cardinal's statement. 

 

I did see a blog mention it.  I noticed it because I know a little bit about UD (which I like a lot.)  I didn't really understand it enough to be personally bothered.

[mortify ii]

NotreDame,

 

This might be a quicker read, a list of their condemned opinions. 

 

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

 

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

Edited January 27, 2014 by mortify ii

[arfink]

Well, logically, there are a few possibilities here:

 

1. The cardinal in question means something different when he speaks of modernism, and is making some kind of distinction without changing terms. This seems reasonable to me as the Church (and Dominicans in particular) has always been fond of hair-splitting distinctions. Obviously if you condemn without distinction (IE, without properly and narrowly defining modernism) then your condemnation will be overbroad, and a new distinction will shed new light on the matter.

 

2. The cardinal in question means something different when he speaks of modernism, and is totally ignoring the old definition. This doesn't seem reasonable to me, because he'd have to be a very dumb cardinal to do that, and cardinals usually aren't, even if we don't particularly like them.

 

3. The cardinal in question is, in fact, openly flouting church teaching. This really doesn't seem all that plausible to me. I understand many who style themselves traditionalists are instantly suspicious of everything Pope Francis or anyone associated with him does, but it seems highly unlikely that this would happen without immediate condemnation from someone other than traddy pundits.

[NotreDame]

NotreDame,

 

This might be a quicker read, a list of their condemned opinions. 

 

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

 

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

 

Thanks... I skimmed the one by Pius IX.  That's pretty much in line with the broader term "modernism" I was familiar with.  Pius X seemed to get more into church specific things.  I saved both and will read them soon. 

[mortify ii]

Well, logically, there are a few possibilities here:

 

1. The cardinal in question means something different when he speaks of modernism, and is making some kind of distinction without changing terms. This seems reasonable to me as the Church (and Dominicans in particular) has always been fond of hair-splitting distinctions. Obviously if you condemn without distinction (IE, without properly and narrowly defining modernism) then your condemnation will be overbroad, and a new distinction will shed new light on the matter.

 

2. The cardinal in question means something different when he speaks of modernism, and is totally ignoring the old definition. This doesn't seem reasonable to me, because he'd have to be a very dumb cardinal to do that, and cardinals usually aren't, even if we don't particularly like them.

 

3. The cardinal in question is, in fact, openly flouting church teaching. This really doesn't seem all that plausible to me. I understand many who style themselves traditionalists are instantly suspicious of everything Pope Francis or anyone associated with him does, but it seems highly unlikely that this would happen without immediate condemnation from someone other than traddy pundits.

 

Arfink,

 

A distinction in terms without changing the terms... hmm... well it seems to me the Cardinal is not making such a distinction since he is identifying it with the historical movement we know it to be. Is there a way you can render modernism in a positive light? 

 

Furthermore, pay attention tot he end of the quote. Change is the key word.

[NotreDame]

Did some googling.  Here is the full speech. 

 

http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-councils-unfinished-business.html

 

I haven't read it yet.

[An Historian]

Well it's a good thing that the opinion of His Grace Cardinal Maradiaga matters very little.

 

[KnightofChrist]

Whatever type of modernism the Cardinal spoke about is the same type he says the First Vatican Council condemned. So if we look at the type of modernism that the Council condemned we may know the type the Cardinal spoke of.

Edited January 27, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[mortify ii]

An Historian,

What's significant is that this is probably one of the first public admissions of a rupture from a high ranking Cardinal. The partyline for the past sixty years was that there was no change in teaching between the Church of past and present after Vatican II.

[Nihil Obstat]

3. The cardinal in question is, in fact, openly flouting church teaching. This really doesn't seem all that plausible to me. I understand many who style themselves traditionalists are instantly suspicious of everything Pope Francis or anyone associated with him does, but it seems highly unlikely that this would happen without immediate condemnation from someone other than traddy pundits.

Just because I am a hard-hitting, no-nonsense pilgrim who simply seeks the truth and asks the tough questions that everyone else is afraid to ask ( :| :| :| ) . . .
 
Is it impossible that there is an element of truth to this? Like... is it unthinkable that things have gone wrong here and there, and traditionalists recognized it first, or more clearly recognized the root causes?

 

Call that devil's advocate if you like. 

[An Historian]

An Historian,

What's significant is that this is probably one of the first public admissions of a rupture from a high ranking Cardinal. The partyline for the past sixty years was that there was no change in teaching between the Church of past and present after Vatican II.

 

No it is not.  It is a Cardinal's opinion that a rupture occurred.  But that is not the case.  The Council documents are abysmal in their attempt to explain the faith, they are extraordinarily poor in their structure and presentation and without a doubt they can be read in an unorthodox light.  Which is one of their weaknesses.  But at the same time they can be read in light of tradition and properly understood.  And a Catholic's obligation is to view the documents and understand them in light of the Church's mind which began 2000 years ago.  Taking [i]Lumen gentium[/i] as an example people claim that it teaches non-baptised persons that die in a state of invincible ignorance will be saved.  They say that the Church teaches non-Christians can be saved.  Yet you wont actually find this teaching in the document [i]Lumen gentium[/i] and in fact the same [i]Lumen gentium[/i] itself and other documents of Vatican II contradict this claim.  It is all about proper understanding.

[arfink]

St. Thomas Aquinas was condemned as a heretic for teaching Aristotelianism when it was all the rage in 11th century academia, and was later made a doctor of the Church. I am of the opinion that condemnation of modernism as a whole is incredibly overbroad. The previous condemnations of modernism issued by the Church deal with specific issues in modernism.

 

Of course, I am approaching from the mindset of a philosopher, and thinking about modernism as a system of thought rather than a list of anathemas.

[An Historian]

St. Thomas Aquinas was condemned as a heretic for teaching Aristotelianism when it was all the rage in 11th century academia, and was later made a doctor of the Church. I am of the opinion that condemnation of modernism as a whole is incredibly overbroad. The previous condemnations of modernism issued by the Church deal with specific issues in modernism.

 

Of course, I am approaching from the mindset of a philosopher, and thinking about modernism as a system of thought rather than a list of anathemas.

 

Ah but that's the thing.  Modernism has been condemned by a list of anathemas.  Saint Thomas Aquinas was not.  There was conflict amongst the theological schools but you have misrepresented the historical case of Saint Thomas.  He was never condemned by a Pope for his theology and philosophy or an ecumenical council or even a local synod.  Your comparison between the Modernists and Saint Thomas falls wholly flat on this single point.  Saint Thomas struggled against other schoolmen and theologians.  Modernists have been outright condemned by the Church's Magisterium.  Quite frankly your post is insulting against the memory of the Angelic Doctor.