Modernism and the Magisterium

gkupsidedown.blogspot.com ^ | Monday, November 23, 2009 | Fr. Longenecker

[GonzoII]

Modernism and the Magisterium

After analyzing the modernism in the Anglican Church it was pointed out that there's plenty of modernism in the Catholic Church too. True enough, and because blog posts should be short and punchy, I left this issue for another day.

It is true that all the problems I outlined in the post on Modernism in the Anglican Church are present in the Catholic Church. In many ways the effects have been even more devastating. At least the Anglicans with their good taste have preserved beautiful liturgy, architecture and sacred music in the midst of the modernism. Many Catholics have been even more gung ho on the dumbing down of Christianity, the vulgarization of the liturgy, art and architecture that is the philosophical offspring of modernism. The moral crisis among Catholic clergy which has caused so much pain and scandal is the direct effect of mixing clerical celibacy (which modernists simply cannot understand) with modernism and the moral relativism of the sexual revolution. The resulting cocktail was disastrously poisonous.

However, there are two distinct differences in the circumstances of Anglicanism and Catholicism. The first is that, while the Catholics have fallen into the same moral morass as Anglicanism, what they are doing has not been condoned and sanctioned by the Church. Yes, there are Catholic homosexual priests, Catholic bishops and priests and people who support women's ordination, Catholic people who favor abortion, remarriage after divorce etc. etc. The Church teaching, however, is clear and uncompromising. So in the Catholic Church you find Church teaching which is firm and clear and traditional, but some Catholics dissent and have their own opinion which is liberal. In the Anglican Church is is virtually the reverse: the Church teaching is either non existent, open ended or actually sanctions the modernist stance but you have individual Anglicans who choose to hold to the traditional, historic faith.

The second fact, on which the first is built is that while Catholics are besieged by modernism, we still have the magisterium of the Church which repudiates modernism and offers the guide for authentic historic Christianity in the world today. We have a Catechism which states the church's teaching clearly and positively. The Popes hold the line, defending, defining and teaching the faith in the face of modernism, and in opposition to it. The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church defends historic Christianity and those of the faithful who go adrift do so knowingly. They are sheep who have strayed from the fold and from the Good Shepherd.

Individual Anglicans, on the other hand, are sheep without a shepherd. Without a clear authority structure they must make up their own minds, and while there is certainly some value in such independence of mind and action, it must be said that if one is going on a journey it would be possible to wander to the destination asking directions along the way, but it would be more sensible to use a map.

This brings me to the accusation that many non-Catholics make about Catholics: that we are unthinking zombie clones who are drinking the Kool-Aid and marching in lock step behind the Master. To be sure there are some Catholics who switch off their brains (as do many modernists) but this is not the expectation or the ideal. What is the proper relationship to dogma and infallible authority? It must be that the dogma, the moral code and the infallible authority are means to an end--they are not the end in themselves.

For a Catholic the dogma and the moral code which is given by the infallible authority of the Church is simply the ladder on which we climb. They are the map for the journey; the signposts on the way. They are vitally important, but it is the pilgrimage to heaven which is most important, and the final goal in this life is to get to the point where we walk on this pilgrimage so formed and guided by the dogmas and moral code that we no longer rely on them. We have learned to run on the path of God's perfection with the perfect delight of love, doing all those things which were once burdensome with the simplicity of freedom and the beauty of holiness.

Posted by Fr Longenecker

[Petronski]

There are no bounds once you accept allegory.

Absolutely correct!

In fact, I'm sure that one who is prepared to dismiss sufficient portions of Scripture as allegory could deny the divinity of Christ, or even the existence of God altogether.

So what?

[Petronski]

FR has tools to accomplish what you wish.

It is very easy to insinuate they are there and dismiss his request with the intellectual equivalent of "go fish!"

It's a bit harder to admit there are none that fit his criteria.

[Uri’el-2012]

U-2012>There are no bounds once you accept allegory.

Absolutely correct!

In fact, I'm sure that one who is prepared to dismiss sufficient portions of Scripture as allegory could deny the divinity of Christ, or even the existence of God altogether.

So what?

There is only one citation of allegory in scripture.

Augustine introduced the use of allegory to deny
the plain meaning of the Word of G-d.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Petronski]

Oh, so it’s the other way around: you dismiss the Holy Trinity as some kind of Augustinian plot?

Good grief.

[wagglebee]

Since you are a newcomer to FR, you might not know that.

I might not have been here as long as you, but nearly six years hardly constitutes a newcomer.

FR has tools to accomplish what you wish.

I'm not really interested in going back through all of your thousands of posts to see if you have ever expressed to any of the anti-Catholic bigots your rejection of Easter and the Holy Trinity.

There are thousands of Christian FReepers who are neither Catholic nor Orthodox, and more than a few of them are anti-Catholic bigots, who believe in the Holy Trinity and celebrate the Easter Resurrection of our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Have you ever, to the best of your knowledge, told any of them that their beliefs are pagan? A simple yes or no will suffice.

[wagglebee]

There is only one citation of allegory in scripture.

And what do you purport that to be?

Augustine introduced the use of allegory to deny the plain meaning of the Word of G-d.

Really? Do the anti-Catholic bigots who are Calvinist know that you reject Saint Augustine?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

What we see at the Mass is bringing down to earth of the reality of what is in heaven.

Wow. What a great and concise statement of the papacy's profound Scriptural error.

The "reality of heaven" came to earth 2,000 years ago and performed the merciful act of sacrifice God had ordained from before the foundation of the world. Christ is now in heaven making His enemies His footstool.

Believers' lives have now been spiritually remade. We are spiritual beings who understand the spiritual things of God. We have no need for the physical Christ to offer Himself again and again because we believe God's word in Hebrews when He tells us this one-time sacrifice is complete and 100% effective according to God's purpose. Believers have been acquitted of their sins by Christ paying for every transgression they commit. That's what redemption means.

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" -- Colossians 2:13-14

The RCC errs when it tells its members that believers' justification is ongoing. In fact, our justification is complete. It is finished. Christ redeemed His flock at Calvary. Sadly, Rome seeks to control men by lying to them that this justification is progressive and doled out by the RCC rituals and superstitions.

Rome looks down earthward still uncertain of Christ's finished work on the cross when the Bible tells us to look up and rejoice. We have been bought with a price. All sales final.

[wagglebee]

Augustine introduced the use of allegory to deny the plain meaning of the Word of G-d.

Earlier you suggested that Constantine the Great caused all of the problems, Saint Augustine lived and taught nearly a century later. Which is it?

[betty boop]

The point being that what happened before are actually the parables to Calvary (Heb 9). What we see at the Mass is bringing down to earth of the reality of what is in heaven. Not a metaphor, not a parable, but the real thing...but in two separate and distinct temporal planes.

Dear markomalley, my suspicion is (FWIW) that, notwithstanding this deep philosophical truth as gleaned and elaborated by the great Saints and Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church, persons outside that Tradition have no clue about it, about what goes on in it, of what it might mean in terms of the larger society at any given time.

I'd predict the "knee-jerk reaction" of many against granting standing to such a public proposal; because it seems to involve/pretend (as a moral and physical vision of the fundaments of [humanly-experienced] reality) to be everlasting, from the beginning, and without end; that is, being already independent of humanly recognizable spatio–temporal categories at all — indeed, as the recognition that there can be no "spatio-temporal standard" at all, without the recognition that there needs to be an an absolute measure or standard against which such could be evaluated, "measured" for its truth, etc.

It seems to me this is precisely where the "public problem" can be found nowadays: There is no common principle that the great disparity of free human individuals can rally around.

Whatever. In any case, I hardly consider that Roman Catholic "rituals" are primarily designed to "invoke" or — oh, what was the word from the ancient days, when I sat at Benjamin Creme's knee? — that would constitute the magic word that would make historical, universal human experience perfectly irrelevant to modern problems?

Pul-eeze....

Still I imagine we are not speaking directly with each other....

[Zionist Conspirator]

Why did YHvH permit the babylonian captivity ?

Failure to observe the sabbatical years of fallow. The Prophets understood and discussed this fact.

Evidently you don't regard the Shemittah as a "metaphor."

Everything else in your post is the simple restatement of chr*stian claims. The fact that chr*stianity claims them does not make them true.

You evidently have a very low view of the Torah--a view belied by your Hebraicization of everything.

The Torah is the ultimate revelation. It sits in judgment on the Prophets, not vice versa. Let me know if you ever find a verse in the Torah where it claims to be only temporary.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I agree with your experience of Roman Catholicism on this forum, but I reject “scientific criticism” of the Torah (and the Na”KH as well). Furthermore, while there are indeed “seventy levels to the Torah,” all the events in the Torah also happened as they described in addition to their deeper meanings.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I can live with that. 8~)

[Petronski]

Like so much, the RCC ridicules many of the facts of God's word while inventing traditions of their own making.

But the Catholic Church does not.

[Uri’el-2012]

U-2012>Why did YHvH permit the babylonian captivity ?

Failure to observe the sabbatical years of fallow. The Prophets understood and discussed this fact.

Evidently you don't regard the Shemittah as a "metaphor."

Clearly YHvH did not consider it metaphorical.

I have a very high regard for YHvH's Torah,
Just not the man-made Oral "Torah"

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Petronski]

The RCC errs when it tells its members that believers' justification is ongoing. . . . Sadly, Rome seeks to control men by lying to them that this justification is progressive and doled out by the RCC rituals and superstitions. Rome looks down earthward still uncertain of Christ's finished work on the cross . . . .

Thankfully, none of that describes the Catholic Church either, praise God!

[markomalley]

Dear markomalley, my suspicion is (FWIW) that, notwithstanding this deep philosophical truth as gleaned and elaborated by the great Saints and Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church, persons outside that Tradition have no clue about it, about what goes on in it, of what it might mean in terms of the larger society at any given time.

You are likely quite right about that. Having said that, I, for one, notice no lack of attendance at well executed liturgies. In the DC area, there are 3 or 4 places that I would generally take guests (the Shrine, the Cathedral (for a Missa Cantata only), St. Mary Mother of God (high mass), and Franciscan Monastery (Triduum)), many, if not most of whom are not Catholic. In the years I have lived here, I have never failed to see reactions of being utterly uplifted during the liturgy, some to the point of jaws gaping open. This is the experience of the Mass, with even a miniscule amount of catechesis: having an encounter with God who is both transcendent and immanent. And, at least from my experience, it does not get boring...no matter how many times one participates in the experience.

This is the point that Fr. Longenecker was talking about in his piece at the top of the thread. The modernist tends to forget about the transcendent nature of God and tends to recast God in an immanent role only, based largely upon phenomena. That sets us up for relativism, which eventually leads to the questioning of agnosticism and ultimately atheism.

It seems to me this is precisely where the "public problem" can be found nowadays: There is no common principle that the great disparity of free human individuals can rally around.

Thus the lament against modernism.

Whatever. In any case, I hardly consider that Roman Catholic "rituals" are primarily designed to "invoke" or — oh, what was the word from the ancient days, when I sat at Benjamin Creme's knee? — that would constitute the magic word that would make historical, universal human experience perfectly irrelevant to modern problems?

Catholic liturgy is designed to bring the transcendent truths of God to man in a very immanent experience that can be grasped at some level by the participant.

Although a person, even an adult convert, will not fully understand the ontological change that occurs when he/she is baptised, nor will the teenager when he/she is charismated/confirmed, they will know something. The better the catechesis before those sacraments are administered, the more faithfully the rites that make up those sacraments are followed by their ministers and the more those ministers perform those rites with maximum reverence, the more the recipient of those sacraments will get out of them. This is the opposite of what the modernists want to do (they wish to 'dumb them down' so they are more 'approachable' -- **belch**).

But the question is, how would any of this make liturgy irrelevant?

Still I imagine we are not speaking directly with each other....

I was, in my earlier post, trying to add a point of clarification to a number of posts with folks talking past each other. however, that is not the case this time.

[Mr Rogers]

“What we see at the Mass is bringing down to earth of the reality of what is in heaven. Not a metaphor, not a parable, but the real thing...but in two separate and distinct temporal planes.”

Except Jesus isn’t being sacrificed in heaven. He is the Lamb that WAS slain, not the Lamb being slain.

[Mr Rogers]

“Yep, the logical outcome of YOPIOS will always be the rejection of EVERYTHING except that which is intellectually simplistic or emotionally uplifting.”

Yep, sounds like John Calvin - just an intellectually simplistic emotional teddy bear...

[wagglebee]

I’m confused, are you agreeing with me or is this sarcasm?

[Mr Rogers]

Well, since I’m a Baptist and EXPECTED to interpret scripture apart from the Catholic Church, I guess I have to disagree with you. Not everyone who is Protestant is “intellectually simplistic” or relies on “emotionally uplifting” instead of faith in God. John Calvin certainly had his faults...he was none too fond of Baptists...but he was very intelligent and not exactly a warm, cuddly, Kumbaya-singing TV evangelist! James White would be another example of someone who doesn’t make emotional appeals, and who can handle himself quite well in a debate with Catholic apologists.

Those who prefer scripture to church catechisms for authority are neither stupid nor preying on the emotionally needy. Having lived in third world, Catholic majority countries, I’d say that Catholicism is every bit as open to misinterpretation, emotional displays and wild doctrine among adherents. If you doubt me, look at the Philippines, where many ‘Catholics’ will nail themselves to crosses each spring.

I think it is fair to say that most ‘denominations’ (faith traditions? not sure what the best word is) have a mix of very intelligent and sincere defenders, along with ample folk who don’t know what or why they believe.