Chapter 6: Modernism

Chapter 6 of Dr Edward Schaeffer's new book, A Simple Man’s Case for Tradition, written for the average Catholic in the pew, not a professional "liturgist".

From One Peter Five

By Edward Schaeffer, PhD

Editor’s note: we continue our weekly serialisation of Dr. Edward Schaefer’s new book A Simple Man’s Case for Tradition. This book is an excellent introduction to Traditionalism and provides an easy way for Trads to introduce the movement to fellow Catholics who are seeking deeper answers to today’s questions. Proceeds from the book sale also help promote the Collegium Sanctorum Angelorum, one of only two traditional Catholic colleges in the United States.

Read the Introduction
Read Chapter 1: Equally Valid and Holy
Read Chapter 2: the New Mass
Read Chapter 3: Latin

Read Chapter 4: Practice and Belief

Read Chapter 5: One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic

Definition

Recently, a prospective Collegium[1] student after visiting the college commented, “I love everything about The Collegium, but I am not so sure about the Oath Against Modernism to which you subscribe.  You know, I do think it was a good idea that we sent a man to the moon.” Realizing his mistaken understanding of the term “modernism,” one of our students wittily replied, “Are you sure that we did?” Now the prospective student thinks that not only are traditionalists anti-modern, but we are also conspiracy theorists.

Well, we are neither.  When we speak of modernism, we refer to something that has nothing to do with advances in technology, science, math, etc.  We are talking about a philosophical movement that began in the 19th century but that had its roots in the Renaissance (15th and 16th centuries), which is when scholars and artists took inspiration from classic Greek and Roman works. Concurrently with this Renaissance trend, an intellectual movement rose, called Humanism, that placed emphasis on the ability of “humans to give shape and meaning to their own lives.”[2] This, in turn, began to deemphasize the importance of God and religion in shaping human lives.

During the Age of Enlightenment (17th and 18th Centuries), humanist ideas progressed.  “Science and intellectualism advanced, and humanists argued that rationality could replace deism as the means with which to understand the world.”[3]

In the 19th century, humanist ideas blossomed fully into modernism, a movement that affected not only philosophy and religion, but also commerce, industry, technology, architecture and all the art forms.  Building on its humanistic roots of self-consciousness, modernism “encouraged the re-examination of every aspect of existence … with the goal of finding that which was holding back progress, and replacing it with new ways of reaching the same end.”[4] 

Applied to the Catholic faith, modernism also challenged every aspect of the Church’s existence, rejecting the idea that truth is absolute and adopting the position that truth must be redefined in every age in order to meet the needs of that age. Since God is Truth[5] and God is immutable,[6] if truth is not absolute, that is, if it must be redefined constantly, then there is no God. At its root, then, modernism is atheistic.

Modernism and the Church in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries

The progression of modernism, spurred in part by the dramatic advances of the industrial revolution, was so pervasive that Pope Pius IX published the Syllabus of Errors in 1864, in which he condemned the tenets of modernism, even if he called the movement by other names.  Three examples of prevalent theories, which the Syllabus condemned, demonstrate:

Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations.[7]

Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason.[8]

The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man.[9]

As the movement continued to advance, Pope Pius X promulgated the encyclical Pascendi Domini gregis in 1907.  The Holy Father minced no words in describing the gravity of the situation:

That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man.[10]

Indeed, the Holy Father called modernism “the synthesis of all heresies.”[11]  However, despite the Church’s efforts to fight modernism, it continued to advance, invading every corner of society, including the Church.  Perhaps the best example of this advance in the Church can be seen in the changes since Vatican Council II.

Modernism and the Church in the late Twentieth Century

Since the end of Vatican Council II (1962-1965), there can be no denying that things have changed dramatically in the Church. Some revel in these changes, saying that the Church was outdated and in need of modernizing. To wit, there was a popular song – music was one of the most radical changes following the Council – composed in 1991 called Sing a New Church with the following refrain:

Let us bring the gifts that differ
And, in splendid, varied ways,
Sing a new Church into being,
One in faith and love and praise.[12]

Others contend that the changes, that is, this modernizing, have not involved Church teaching, just practice, and that any “wandering” from Church teaching has happened only because of poor implementation of the Council’s mandates. For example, Philip Kosloski notes that “St. John Paul II was a strong promoter of Vatican II, but he did recognize how the Church has struggled in its authentic implementation of it.”[13]  There has even been a movement called “the Reform of the Reform,” focused on rethinking the implementation of the Council’s mandates in a manner more consistent with constant Church teaching.[14]  Pope Benedict XVI, too, insisted that, somehow, the changes in the Church must be viewed in a “hermeneutic of continuity” with the past.[15]

So, did Vatican Council II establish a “new Church,” or is it the same Church, with some post-conciliar misguidance?  We can get some clues toward answering this question by examining Pope Paul VI’s own summary of the Council at its conclusion:

You, modern humanists, who renounce the transcendence of the highest realities, at least confer on us the merit and recognize our new humanism:we too – more than anyone – honor mankind.

The modern mind, accustomed to assess everything in terms of usefulness, will readily admit that the Council’s value is great if only because everything has been referred to human usefulness. Hence no one should ever say that a religion like the Catholic religion is without use, seeing that when it has its greatest self-awareness and effectiveness, as it has in council, it declares itself entirely on the side of man and in his service. In this way the Catholic religion and human life reaffirm their alliance with one another, the fact that they converge on one single human reality: The Catholic religion is for mankind.[16]

Of course, the Catholic religion is for mankind.  It was established by Jesus Christ specifically for the salvation of mankind.  However, when such a statement is put in the context of the earlier statement that the council has ushered in a “new humanism,” in which the Church “more than anyone … honors mankind,” the phrase “the Catholic religion is for mankind” begins to take on the hue of modernism. 

This may seem blasphemous in an era when we are consumed with making the Council a success, even if every gauge that the Church uses to measure her health, such as Mass attendance, vocations, baptisms, attendance in Catholic schools, etc., has shown significant declines since the Council.[17] My point here is not to argue the theological merits or demerits of the Council.  I am just trying to make sense of the collapse of the Church, the institution that I see as my vehicle to get to heaven, and the dramatic changes in the Church since the Council that seem either to be a cause of this collapse or ineffective in stopping it.  In this process of making sense of this collapse, I am beginning to wonder if modernistic tendencies, at least, have infiltrated the Church and are part of the problem.

To explore this possibility, let me ask a few questions and then make a conclusion:

• Is it really possible to change all the Church’s practices, that is, the Mass and all the Sacraments, while thinking that it would not affect Church teaching?[18] 
• If the intention was not to change Church teaching, then why change the practice?
• Was the Council nothing more than rearranging furniture so that the institution would be more inviting? 

Father Álvero Calerón contends that this was not the case at all.  Instead, he insists that the Council was influenced heavily by the ideals of modernism. However, because the Church had resisted modernism so strongly in the past, it was necessary that the modernists not reject the Church but find a way to be adopted by it.[19]  Pope Paul VI’s comments above would at least raise the possibility that the modernists have achieved success in this regard.

Conclusion

These observations raise many serious questions for me, some of which I have posited above.  Too, these are questions that I am not fully equipped to answer, and judging by the present crisis in the Church, in which “traditionalists” and “post-conciliarists” seem to be at complete odds with one another, I don’t think I am alone in my inability to make sense of the situation or to propose a solution.

Until I can, I will hold the position that I affirm and believe everything, even those things taught in Vatican Council II, that the Church has always taught.  Furthermore, I will adhere to practices that embrace and inculcate those things that the Church has always taught and that, therefore, will help me in my efforts to affirm and believe those constant teachings.  In short, I will embrace tradition.

Continued next week.