The Heresy of Modernism. What is it?

[odhiambo]

What is the Heresy of Modernism?
I came across it for the first time today and I do not quite grasp what exactly it means. 

[Shin]

There's an excellent little book called a Catechism on Modernism by Fr. Lemius on Saints' Books. It's based on Pope St. Pius X's encyclical on the subject, Pascendi Dominici Gregis. . .

For what little it's worth. . . I hope I am putting this decently. . .

I tend to think of it as subjectivism or liberalism of a fundamental kind, that tries to reinvent Catholicism and claim itself to be Catholicism. And then it is tied to Masonry, and humanism. There are certain key ideas that are pillars of it and normally always found with it. . .

But basically it is an upside down approach to Faith, it comes out of man, and interprets all Revelation in the light of a corrupt society and worldview that came out through Masonic ideals, rather than having Revelation be something untouchably true, whom man then must believe in and adjust himself to. In other words it adjusts Revelation to Man, rather than Man to Revelation. . .

And so does away with the supernatural virtue of faith, and true Revelation.

Modernism, as its name suggests, tries to 'bring the Church up to date' with modern times, doing away with or changing and tinkering with every tradition and belief it can possibly touch, always with 'good reasons', with the idea of a superiority of understanding in these modern times as the pivot. Alternatively, the excuse is used that these changes are restoring primitive practices -- the evidence for which restoration, does not actually exist, is invented in pseudo historical commentary, or is twisted, and simply an excuse for new inventions from the minds of men wishing to shape people's religious beliefs.

It has taken power throughout the Church in the past decades on all levels, and infected literature and minds everywhere. Since the corruption is so all pervasive. . .

The consensus of the saints is the true help and way to clear through the clouds of confusion and mistaken beliefs that come about through it.

[odhiambo]

Thank you Shin 
I was reading the biography of Pope St. Pius X today and that is where I came across the heresy.
Thanks.

[Shin]

What a Pope. . . if only we had him today! Then we would have saintly virtues flourishing and innocence defended. . . But we do not deserve him. . .

[martin]

To gain a good undersanding of the definiton of Modernism it would be worth reading the whole of "Pascendi Dominica Gregis" the Encyclical of Pope Pius X on the doctrines of the Modernist. It can be easily forund on line b typing the title into google.

So serious did Pope Pius X take the schemings of the Modernists that he ordered an oath to be sworn by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
The Oath against Modernism was given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.   The oath was abolished two years after the close of the Second Vatican Council, though the men who took the Oath at ordination are still bound by it.

Here is the Oath.

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. 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.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.

Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. .

[Shin]

It's a beautiful oath to read! If only it had been truly kept both in spirit and letter widely instead of broken!

[martin]

What a Pope. . . if only we had him today! Then we would have saintly virtues flourishing and innocence defended. . . But we do not deserve him. . .

Thanks be to God that in one sense we still do have him through his encyclicals and writings, standing as a true measure of orthodoxy which transcend all times and all novelties. These were well foreseen by this great saintly Pope.  

St Pius X ora pro nobis.

[Shin]

Yes, we have the papers.

I was thankful just the other day reading some old confraternity manuals.

What is old is tried and true. . .

[odhiambo]

Reading the oath, I can see how passionate he was about the modernists.
I am beginning to get the picture.