Salvation and the Travesty of Modernism
I’ve taken an interest in the history of Modernism, and due to some recent conversations on this blog, I also wanted to know more about the doctrine of salvation and how Modernist thought distorted the Church teaching. I read (and do not recommend) Alfred Loisy’s book, The Gospel and the Church, because Modernism is confusing and often misunderstood, and I wanted to know what the Modernist leader thought. I’ve tried to explain it, to quote for support, and to also compare it to the Catholic doctrine of salvation. It seems appropriate to share it today, Blessed Ascension Thursday.
Shortly after the new millennium, in 1907, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued a syllabus, Lamentabili sane exitu, naming sixty-five propositions that are to be condemned as the errors of the Modernists. [1] Number sixteen addressed the mystery of salvation:
“The narrations of John are not properly history, but a mystical contemplation of the Gospel. The discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations, lacking historical truth concerning the mystery of salvation.” [2]
To understand why this condemned proposition was stated in this way, it is necessary to consider the writing of Alfred Loisy, the most prominent leader of the movement. He was, at the time, a Roman Catholic priest and biblical scholar, who five years prior had published several chapters of The Gospels and the Church, a book that provoked intense reaction among theologians and drew the attention of the Holy See. [3] The matter was first appropriately left in the hands of Loisy’s Superior who prohibited the book in his diocese because it was contrary to the fundamental doctrines of Catholicism. [4] However, Loisy continued to publish, eventually demanding the attention of Pope Pius X who approved the decree Lamentabili Sane and followed it with the encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, condemning Modernism in all of its forms as “the synthesis of all heresies.” [5]
The Gospel and the Church was a response to a Protestant scholar and Loisy framed his reply to “catch the point of view of history” and not as an “apologia for Catholicism or traditional dogma.” [6] To Loisy, separating the two freed him to be more scientific in his assessment of scripture. This is problematic, and it is obvious in the first chapter, “The Source of the Gospels,” which concludes that the “subject of this faith is at no stage of its development presented to the historian as an actual reality.” [7] But how can that be? For a priest and exegete to separate the truth of faith from the truth of history is to reject every Catholic dogma.
The Gospel of John is mentioned in Lamentabili because Loisy taught that the Gospel of St. John had a more limited “historical authority” than the synoptic Gospels, claiming that it was founded on a “special tradition” and not factual history, to be interpreted as a “symbolic” and “allegorical” aspect of “traditional memory.” [8] “The idea underlying John’s Gospel is always a vision of faith,” Loisy writes, “expressed in the language of this mystic philosophy.” [9] This vague wording gives the impression that nothing is really true of St. John’s account. Loisy tries to prove that religious truth of all the Gospels is only to be held by faith because faith “transfigured the memories of the Apostles.” [10] He believes this is proven by the Fourth Gospel since the historical events do not match with the other Gospels.
In one of the most problematic statements, Loisy completely divorces criticism from truth: “Criticism has not to decide if Jesus is or is not the Word Incarnate, if He existed before His terrestrial manifestation, if He was consecrated Messiah from His conception, or from the day of His baptism, if the idea of the Messiah in its earliest form, and in its successive transformations, is a truth. Considered as belief, this idea is addressed to faith, that is to say, to the man, judging with all his soul the worth of the religious doctrine presented to him. The historian as such need not constitute himself either apologist or adversary.” [11]
Pascendi explains the Modernist thought process, and how it originates with the anathematized idea that God cannot be known by reason alone. [12] Thus scholastic philosophy, which relies on the senses and human reason, is severed from theology so that what man can know in matters of religion is relegated to internal sentiments. [13] Modernists then conclude, as Loisy did, that God can never be considered part of historical reality or salvation history. Modernists also rely on the idea of “vital immanence” which is the search for God within man’s conscience rather than external to himself, so that he is free to fabricate his own ideas about religion and salvation. [14]
Indeed, rather than defending and respecting the Catholic dogma regarding salvation within the Church through Christ, Loisy wrote of salvation theories that evolved with time and culture to save the Christian religion, beginning with a “Pauline theory of salvation” that was “indispensable in its time, if Christianity were not to remain a Jewish sect without a future.” [15] Loisy believed the “theory” of the Incarnate Logos later evolved as propaganda to proselytize Judaism and the pagan world “to make Christianity acceptable to the most cultivated minds.” [16] To Loisy, the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity were a “vital manifestation, a great effort of faith and intelligence, which enabled the Church to link her own tradition to the science of the age.” [17] He viewed all developments of doctrine as evolutionary changes to make Christianity acceptable, a relativism which logically must lead one to a denial that absolute truths exist. [18] Loisy even states that “man is free to save himself” and referred to salvation as a “sentiment which has preserved, in a sense, the Divinity of Jesus.” [19] Although Loisy refused to recant his position, he could not deny that the papal encyclical had correctly reflected his beliefs; and he was excommunicated.
But what of this Modernist opinion? Is it directly in contradiction with the Catholic doctrine on salvation? The answer is yes, it is. It is a defined and constant article of faith that “outside the Church there is no salvation.” [20] The Church’s Magisterium has affirmed this teaching perpetually. Saints, Holy Fathers, and Doctors of the Church have articulated it, including St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 67), St. Cyprianus (d. 258), St. Cyril (d. 386), St. Ambrose (d. 397), St. John Chrysostom (d. 407), St. Jerome (d. 420), St. Augustine (d. 430), St. Fulgentius (d. 533), St. Bede (d. 535), St. Peter Mavimenus (d. 743), St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), St. Robert Bellarmine (d. 1621) to only name a dozen. [21] The Holy Pontiffs have also been unanimous in their defense of the dogma, including, but again not limited to, Pope Clement I (88-97), Pope Pelagius II (578-590), Pope Gregory the Great (590-604), Pope Adrian II (792-872), Pope Leo IX (1049-1054), Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), Pope Clement VI(1342-1352), Pope Eugene IV (1431-1447), Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), Pope Pius IX (1846-1878), Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903), aforementioned Pope Pius X (1903-1914), Pope Pius XII (1939-1958), and none of the five popes since the lifetime of Alfred Loisy have denied it. [22]
In 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council declared: “There is one Universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation.” [23] In 1302 Pope Boniface VIII stated the dogma in the Bull Unam Sanctum: “Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins.” [24] This was taught by a number of other ecumenical councils including the Council of Florence in 1438, the First Vatican Council in 1870 and then later after Loisy’s time at the Second Vatican Council in 1964. [25] The Catechism still affirms that “all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is His Body.” [26]
As it relates to evolving dogma, it can be said that in a sense of increased understanding, the expression of that truth has developed over time. Some theologians describe the dogma of salvation as maturing from a negative and misleading way to a positive and more universal way; but nonetheless, it is still the same truth that is being expressed – the Church is necessary for salvation. [27] What the Modernists called “evolution of dogma” did not actually occur, rather it was, and still is, a development in the Church’s understanding of immutable truth as mankind has progressed. This is a significant distinction.
In the new millennium, the Holy Year 2000, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, issued a declaration Dominus Iesus on the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church. [28] The document declares the “oneness” of Jesus Christ showing how the Bible testifies that Christ is the “Saviour of the world.” [29] The first Christians spread the message of salvation to the Jewish people and the pagan world, preaching that there is One God and one Lord Jesus Christ who died and was raised for the sake of all. [30] Theologians are invited to reflect on other beliefs and to recognize positive elements that may be considered part of the truth of the plan of salvation, but only if they are not contrary to Catholic faith in any way. [31] Christ is absolutely the Saviour of the world and has universal significance; He is the central point of history. [32] The Catechism still affirms: “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please Him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.” [33] The Modernist has difficulty accepting this truth because for him the Church is not the sole instrument for salvation. [34] However, the Church has always taught that she is the only objective means for salvation, without exception. [35] If a person does not belong to the Church, the Church recognizes a possibility for salvation despite it, but it is only that – a possibility through some means of membership in ways only known to God. [36]
One stark and remarkable difference in the writings of the Modernists and the official doctrinal documents of the Catholic Church is that the former, oddly so intent on presenting factual history, refrain from referencing any historical documents of the Church at all. The Modernists instead seem to set it aside, and to wander through their own un-rooted opinions concerned with the fleeting modern world. No real modernist maintains the Catholic notions of dogma. [37] A simple test to know whether a writer is a Modernist or not is to examine the treatment of the dogma’s origin, note whether an authority is cited, and verify any doctrinal references. [38] A Modernist will lay travesty to the doctrine of salvation; a Catholic will respect it, cite it, and assent to its legitimate authority.
[learn_more caption="End Notes"]
- Pope Pius X. Lamentabili sane exitu: Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists, Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, July 3, 1907.
- Lamentabili, error #16.
- Alfred, Loisy. The Gospel and the Church: New Edition with Introduction by Rev. Newman Smyth D.D., Translated by Christopher Homes. (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912), page xi.
- Ibid.
- Pope Pius X. Pascendi doninici gregis: Encyclical of Pope Pius X on the Doctrines of the Modernists, September 8, 1907.
- Loisy, page 2.
- Loisy, page 50.
- Loisy, page 35, 25, 30, and 34.
- Loisy, page 47.
- Loisy, page 50.
- Ibid. Emphasis added.
- Pascendi, section 6.
- Ibid.
- Pascendi, section 7.
- Loisy, page 190.
- Ibid.
- Loisy, page 191.
- Pascendi, section 1.
- Loisy, pages 197 and 247.
- Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican, # 846.
- Fr. William Most. “Is There Salvation Outside the Church?” EWTN Library; and John Pacheco. “Salvation Outside the Church” (2010) The Documents of the Second Vatican Council: A Summary and Guide. Catholic Culture, and references therein for both documents. Names were selected to show the continuity over time.
- Ibid.
- Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV 1215, “The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council” (1215) Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University.
- Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302) Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University.
- Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Salvation Outside the Church. (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. 2002), page 19; First Vatican Council (1869-1870) Session 3, April 24, 1870, “Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith” EWTN Library; and Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, Vatican, section 26.
- CCC, number 846.
- Stravinskas, page 27.
- Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, Cardinal Ratzinger, August 6, 2000.
- Dominus Iesus, section 13, 1 John 4:14 Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.
- Dominus Iesus, section 13.
- Dominus Iesus, section 14.
- Dominus Iesus, section 15.
- Lumen Gentium, section 16; CCC, number 848.
- Pacheco. “Salvation Outside the Church.”
- Ibid.
- Decree Ad Gentes on the Mission Activity of the Church Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965, Vatican, section 7; Dominus Iesus, section 21.
- Arthur Vermeersch. “Modernism.” (1911) The Catholic Encyclopedia. New Advent.
- Ibid.
[/learn_more]
[learn_more caption="Bibliography"]
- Cardinal Ratzinger, Declaration Dominus Iesus on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican, Cardinal Ratzinger, August 6, 2000.
- Decree Ad Gentes on the Mission Activity of the Church Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on December 7, 1965, Vatican.
- Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.
- First Vatican Council (1869-1870) Session 3, April 24, 1870, “Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith” EWTN Library.
- Loisy, Alfred. The Gospel and the Church: New Edition with Introduction by Rev. Newman Smyth D.D., Translated by Christopher Homes. NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912.
- Most, Fr. William. “Is There Salvation Outside the Church?” EWTN Library.
- Pacheco, John. “Salvation Outside the Church” (2010) The Documents of the Second Vatican Council: A Summary and Guide. Catholic Culture.
- Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302) Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University.
- Pope Paul VI , Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium Solemnly Promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, Vatican.
- Pope Pius X. Lamentabili sane exitu: Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists, Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, July 3, 1907.
- Pope Pius X. Pascendi doninici gregis: Encyclical of Pope Pius X on the Doctrines of the Modernists, September 8, 1907.
- Stravinskas, Peter M. J. Salvation Outside the Church? Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. 2002.
- Twelfth Ecumenical Council: Lateran IV 1215, “The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council” (1215) Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University.
- Vatican. Catechism of the Catholic Church.
- Vermeersch, Arthur. “Modernism.” (1911) The Catholic Encyclopedia. New Advent.
Image credit: Benjamin West (1738–1820)
*In the interest of absolute completeness in attribution, all numbers are referenced in gratitude to Euclid, all English words sourced from the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary and all of being, humbly and in exceeding awe, is acknowledged as the will of God.
[/learn_more]
Category: Christology, Church History, Doctrine, Featured, Modernism, Theology
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
An excellent post, and thank you for it. St. Pius X, pray for us.
Is Vatican II modernism? I was watching a show about how this related to Exorcism’s and the divide it had on the church. What are your thoughts?
“ Modernists then conclude, as Loisy did, that God can never be considered part of historical reality or salvation history.”
Stacy, some thoughts, not a manifesto!
An “historical reality” describes my intentional use of the Extraordinary form of the Mass during the blended stages of progressing towards the Church and after finally entering. It is not only a connection to my boyhood years as a high Episcopalian, but, I felt a strong connection to Catholics throughout history, eventually a closer connection with Jesus himself. I realize that the Mass was not prescribed exactly the same in the Apostolic years. The Jesus who wore sandals, sweated, had to wash his clothes, ate food, suffered in the sun, told stories of His father, convinced those around Him that He spoke with authority – historical reality, the reality that the Apostles experienced.
VAT2 was an attempt to retaliate against the modernism you describe that was overtaking us, but as we now are finding out, made able a new Mass that severed in some ways an important historical connection. The structure and validity is the same, but elements that could reinforce a sense of camaraderie were changed or eliminated in the Latin rite. The priest facing the congregation, a hidden tabernacle, inappropriate music, horizontal emphasis, using the vernacular.
This is not to conclude that I reject the Ordinary form, but as this Apostolic letter of Benedict XVI says, “Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration.”
This attachment by experience can maintain a connection with the past, a connection can also be had when we hear the words and perform the actions that were familiar to persons in ancient times, similar to a visit to a recreation of an American Indian village (I was going to say museum but that leaves too wide an opening).
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html states
Thank you James. I appreciate that you took the time to let me know.
Mjeck,
“Is Vatican II modernism?”
Some people interpret as too much of that, yes, according to my understanding. But it seems to me to be a misinterpretation in some ways. I know that’s vague, but my understanding is vague. I’ve read several, not all, of the documents from VII and it seems some people interpreted them way too liberally and took way too much freedom. I’m referring to the things Howard mentioned, specifically liturgical abuses.
“I was watching a show about how this related to Exorcism’s and the divide it had on the church. What are your thoughts?”
I honestly didn’t know there was a divide on this topic. There are lots of divides on issues that Catholics are permitted to disagree on though. The arguing and debating shocked me at first, then a wise person told me that Catholics will argue all day and then go have beer together at night. I’ve found that spirit to be true. I like it. We can debate with passion (sometimes perhaps too much!), but still know we are One Body.
Howard,
I benefit so much from your perspective. I’d like to know a lot more about your experiences. I have never attended an Extraordinary Form Mass, but only because I can’t around here. My husband remembers them in Cuba.
I’m drawn to it, like I think many, many people are though, and after our move we are specifically looking for a parish that offers those ceremonies. I think we’ve found one.
I totally get your explanation about a connection to the past. That’s exactly it, the reverence too. I want our children to grow up experiencing that.
Stacy, I wish my children had been as receptive, they are coming around though.
My oldest is 46 (I think, it changes every year) and is not committed religiously but is interested. He lives several states away. When he visited last year he went to Mass with me. I tried to help him follow what was going on in the missal. He was usually an awkward 1/2 second behind when you kneel and then stand or when you sit then kneel. I had to gesture no to him when we rose for communion. I asked him afterwards what he thought. He said, “I didn’t know what the heck was going on.”
My response was to assure him that was O.K. then give a plug for Our Lady (my wife loved that expression). This devotion is a major attack point of anti-Catholics. I wanted him to return home with at least some understanding of why we are not completely loony if he discusses his experience. That was enough.
Mass is Mass. The Extraordinary form is laid out the same as the Ordinary form. Liturgy of the Word, Readings, Homily, Liturgy of the Eucharist, etc. The main difference I have seen in it’s celebration is with different priests. I think it comes from their lack of experience with this form. Some will be quieter than others when something is to be said out loud. I think that is because of a lack of confidence in speaking Latin. You will also notice sometimes, and it can be funny, their accent -Latin and english. We have had Nigerian, Polish, American and our current excellent pastor, a Philipino. The usual American version sounds very Italian speaking Latin. A wonderful mish-mash that illustrates the universality of the Church.
You may also get into conversations about the two forms that can be very stressful but not quite the free-for-all as we see here.
Some of the major document that pertain to us are here on our website http://www.holyspiritcatholicmission.org/VaticanDocs.php/
The end of your post you mention your children. I have only attended two parishes with the Extraordinary form, but, in both of those the problem that can cause long threads on some Catholic websites is practically non-existent. Children are attentive and reverent to their ability. They imitate their parents. Long, long, long periods of nothing of interest to a child every week is accepted by them as normal behavior. There are of course times of disruption and the parents respond in order to maintain the focus on the verticality of the Mass.
You’ve mentioned that before, Howard, and it was what got me thinking.
We went to a Mass for several years that had a children’s liturgy, where the children leave and do stories and crafts, then afterwards there are donuts and coffee. We stopped attending because the kids were getting unmanageable. I prefer the more reverent services. (Even though I mostly stand at the back with the squirming baby.)
Now — I admit, I have little visions of calm kneeling children with matching veils. I’m kidding, well kind of.
I believe you about the reverence, YES, it seems they’ll learn it and imitate it. Hey, they may even learn Latin! I can’t wait to attend our first EF Mass, but I know I will probably also be confused.
Thanks for that link to your parish. Now I know where to go when I have questions!
“Now — I admit, I have little visions of calm kneeling children with matching veils. I’m kidding, well kind of. “
The mantilla. A beautiful tradition in itself. Catholics are a family. You will see large families (of course) and children of all ages that just might come close to that image. In a family I see every week the women wear it. They have 1 girl probably 20 who shows up even if her family does not attend that service for some reason. She always sits next to her father. 2 girls probably 13 and 15 sit next to their mother. A boy of maybe 10 who sits quietly various places among them. The father sometimes acts as a server and I am sure they pray the rosary at home which we always pray before Mass. Confessions begin 1 hour before each Mass, there are 2, every Sunday. The children use the confessional and are not told to. If a person wants to concentrate on the negative I suppose this togetherness would be ignored.
It revolved around this event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anneliese_Michel
The Priests involved felt this possession was a manifestation from God saying that VII was wrong.
Mjeck, if you read the above essay you know that you are going to have to come up with more details and a clearer question. If this originated on the History Channel or the like it’s not worth considering.
Here is the documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFHgIdY_mIY
The discussion of Vatican II begins at the 28:20 minute mark. The Priest(A traditionalist) felt that V2 was a falling away from the truth of the church and this demonic possession was sanctioned by God as proof that the Priest was make known to the Vatican.
I asked if Vatican 2 was considered modernism.
Like I said, entertainment videos are not worth serious attention, especially about exorcism, Area 51, Kennedy Assassination, Roswell, etc.
The documents of VAT2 are considered many ways by different people depending on what result they expected. I would consider the entire Council as a response to Modernism, Post-modernism, Relativism, Secularism and all the other “isms” that tend to destroy the Church.
If you notice part of a document of the Council that supports a Modernistic view then it would be a good idea to quote it.
Are Exorcism’s a part of the “ism’s” that destroy the church?
Well, Mjeck you asked if Vatican II was considered modernism.
I’m going to give you a really insightful answer to chew on for several days. It took me a life time, so take more time if you need.
The great philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is credited with writing two of the most important books of the 20th century. His first book, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, was a masterpiece of analytical philosophy. His second book, Philosophical Investigations, was published posthumously, and was met with head scratches by his philosophy colleagues at Cambridge; nevertheless it has attracted a wide readership in its own right and is also considered a philosophical masterpiece. The problem with Wittgenstein is that nobody is quite sure what he was trying to accomplish with the Investigations.
There are two schools of thought. One is that the Investigations</i< was a wholesale repudiation of the Tractatus. According to this view, Wittgenstein abruptly reinvented philosophy, possibly admitting he got something wrong, maybe just to fit in.
The second school of thought is that the Investigations was a development and a continuation of the Tractatus in which Wittgenstein corrected some very significant misinterpretations of that terse but difficult book.
The first view might be called a hermeneutic of rupture. That is, the works are incommensurable. They constitute a discontinuity in the life of the author. In this view, the interpretive key for the Investigations is to read it as a break with the Tractatus in every detail. One should read closely for divergence.
The second view might be called a hermeneutic of continuity. That is, the two works can be reconciled by anyone who is very familiar with both Wittgenstein and the philosophical traditions he worked in. I would even say, one must not only be familiar with Wittgenstein, one must have a lifetime relationship with him. He must live in the scholar’s heart.
As for me, there is no doubt that the hermeneutic of continuity is the right one for interpreting the Investigations against the Tractatus. There are so many reasons why, but I couldn’t possibly discuss them without doing them injustice.
Now take this analogy and apply it to Church history. The terms hermeneutic of rupture and hermeneutic of continuity are exactly the terms we use to discuss Vatican II interpretations!
Pope Benedict XVI, who was a key figure in Vatican II by the way, has never wavered in his view that Vatican II must be viewed through — his words — a hermeneutic of continuity.
I too embrace Vatican II as fully continuous with the entire Church tradition. I read, and have always read, the Vatican II documents through the hermeneutic of continuity, as Pope Benedict XVI has taught.
Since the Church condemned modernism, Vatican II also condemns modernism.
A careful reading of the key documents, such as the beautiful gaudium et spes (the joy and the hope), rewards us with insights in this regard. The opening sentence of that document just doesn’t have the feel of a concession. Indeed, it reaches out to the reader, saying that his or her joys and hopes, his or her fears and anxieties, his or her grief is our joy and hope, our fear, our anxiety and grief. But while secular hope is a natural hope, we members of the Christian community have a saving hope, a supernatural hope; indeed, the true hope that we all long for in the deepest part of ourselves.
Gaudium et spes offers the world a way in which hope and that joy might be fulfilled.
Thus ends our little excursus on the question of whether Vatican II was an expression of modernism.
“Are Exorcism’s a part of the “ism’s” that destroy the church?”
No.
“Thus ends our little excursus on the question of whether Vatican II was an expression of modernism.”
Are you sure about that?
I was just reading this from the Paix Liturgique Newsletter.
http://www.paixliturgique.org
“There was a time after the election of 78 year old Benedict XVI when quite a few believed (and not a few hoped) that his papacy would prove a flash in the pan – a stop-gap pope’s vain attempt to “set back the clock” by reviving a lost past. But in the seventh year of Benedict’s pontificate his purposes for the Church’s renewal are prevailing and are shared by those most influential in Rome. The hermeneutic of continuity has taken deep root. It is the lax liturgical practices of the 60’s and 70’s that are passing away with an older generation of bishops and clergy. Those who have been in Rome to discuss these matters in the last two years have returned greatly encouraged. The discipline of the Catholic Church is being restored gently, but firmly by the successor of Peter.
Thanks Howard. I’m really heartened by what Pope Benedict has accomplished so far. I didn’t see until just now, when I read your prior comments about liturgy, that you are hurt by the liturgical abuses in the wake of Vatican II. I share your heartache. But I see that the Holy Father is leading to a restoration of authentic liturgy. He doesn’t like that word, restoration, but I do believe that’s what he’s doing. He is a wise man walking a tight rope and doing so very well.
I have been reading Pope Benedict’s writing’s on liturgy today to refresh myself on the issues. He saw Vatican II as exercising its rightful role in pruning away the accretions that came into the liturgy up through Vatican II. And he sees himself now as once again pruning out the madness that came into the liturgy in the wake of Vatican II.
Jeff, their prior newsletter 27 in the archive is also interesting, “France: While the vocations crisis goes on, the traditionalist tendency continues its trend”.
Fr. Pacwa has done lectures on Vat2 on EWTN Tuesday nights. The next is May 22. Past shows are available.
http://www.ewtn.com/tv/live/thresholdofhope.asp