www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Article On 100th Anniversary Of Encyclical Condemning Modernism

Here's a link to the actual Encyclical "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" by Pope St. Pius X. It clearly defines the nature of modernism, which is something that many have no real grasp of.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...9070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

Here is a link to the article by Sandro Magister.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/172543?eng=y

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

The Encyclical Against the "Modernists" Turns 100 � But Without Fanfare

No official celebrations for the centenary of the "Pascendi" encyclical. The "unworthy methods" used to fight this battle have been discarded. But the questions at the center of that controversy are still open. And the book "Jesus of Nazareth" is proof of this

by Sandro Magister

ROMA, October 23, 2007 � The anniversary came and went in silence, in the Vatican, without any official commemorations. But the questions addressed one hundred years ago in the encyclical "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" by saint Pius X "on the errors of modernism" are still seen as relevant. The reservation is due, instead, to the specific measures that the Church took a century ago: measures viewed as mistaken by today's Church authorities.

This is what the new director of "L'Osservatore Romano," professor Giovanni Maria Vian, said in the first significant interview that he granted after his appointment:

"Pius X was a great reformist pope, and in regard to the modernist question he understood very well what was at stake and what were the dangers for the Church's faith. Unfortunately, his reputation is now linked mostly to the ways in which modernism was combated, often with methods unworthy of the cause they were intended to defend."

And this is also what is said in the only two articles on the "Pascendi" encyclical published in recent weeks by press outlets controlled by the Church hierarchy: "La Civilt� Cattolica," the journal of the Rome Jesuits printed with the editorial authorization of the Vatican authorities, and "Avvenire," the newspaper owned by the Italian bishops' conference.

In "Avvenire," the theologian Corrado Pizziolo emphasized the enduring relevance of the central questions addressed by the encyclical.

But in "La Civilt� Cattolica," Jesuit historian Giovanni Sale, in reconstructing the genesis and development of the document, highlighted the elements judged as most outdated: its excessively "doctrinaire" structure, its excessively "harsh and censorious" tone, and its "excessively fundamentalist and hard-line" application.


* * *

Fr. Sale denies that the actual authors of "Pascendi" were Jesuits. He indicates as the substantial authors the cardinal Viv�s y Tuto, a Capuchin Franciscan, and Fr. Lemius, of the Missionaries of Mary Immaculate. But he confirms that "one of the greatest inspirations from the theological and cultural point of view" for the encyclical was indeed one of the Jesuits of "La Civilt� Cattolica," Fr. Enrico Rosa.

In the judgment of Fr. Rosa � and of Pius X � modernism was "a new form of Christianity that threatened to overwhelm the ancient one." To oppose it, it had to be struck at its philosophical root, the error from which sprung all the other errors in theology, morality, culture, and practical life. The fundamental error attributed to the modernists was that of denying the capacity of reason to know the truth, thereby reducing everything � including religion, and including Christianity � to subjective experience.

Fr. Sale notes, however, that the modernists never accepted this interpretive scheme:

"In their view, the movement to reform religious studies, as they called it, had not originated in specific philosophical theories, but rather in historical criticism and the new exegesis of Sacred Scripture. That is, they chose as the foundation of their movement, not philosophy, but history, or rather sacred history, liberated from adulterations and restored to its original integrity, through the new historical-critical method."

Furthermore, Fr. Sale writes that the modernist tendency has never reached the popular masses, as Fr. Rosa and Pius X feared:

"The movement of the 'innovators' (at least the doctrinal and theological movement) remained confined to the restricted circles of Catholic scholars, mostly young priests or seminarians."

But this did not prevent "some conservative Catholic forces," in the years following "Pascendi," from unleashing within the Church "a violent anti-modernist polemic, often with few scruples." The person most active in this campaign was a prelate of the Vatican curia, Umberto Benigni, who acted � Fr. Sale notes � "with the approval and blessing of the pope himself."

Essential research on Benigni and on the "Sodalitium Pianum" he created � a sort of espionage center in the Church of the time � has been published by the French scholar �mile Poulat.


* * *

In "Avvenire," a different approach to "Pascendi" is taken by Fr. Corrado Pizziolo, professor of theology and vicar general in Treviso, the diocese of the birthplace of saint Pius X.

He calls attention above all to the two questions that were at the center of the clash between Pius X and the modernists, in order to demonstrate that these are still relevant.

The first question concerns biblical exegesis. According to the modernists, in particular Alfred Loisy, only the application of scientific exegesis to the Bible can assure reliable and verifiable results. Interpretation based on faith, on the other hand, "is not real: it is a purely subjective interpretation, the fruit of religious sentiment."

Pizziolo writes:

"The condemnation decreed by the anti-modernist magisterium does not concern scientific exegesis as such, but the declared opposition, as held by modernism, between faith and history, between theological exegesis and scientific exegesis." This opposition "continues to present itself today as a question that must be taken into account. There is no other way to explain why, one hundred years later, Benedict XVI would dedicate the foreword of his recent book on Jesus of Nazareth to recalling the value and limitations of the historical-critical method, insisting on the need for a scientific exegesis illuminated by the faith."

The second question concerns divine revelation. The modernists identify this revelation in a purely interior experience, in religious and mystical sentiment.

The "Pascendi" encyclical reiterates, instead, that revelation comes from God; it is God who speaks to man. And with even more force, Vatican Council II, in the constitution "Dei Verbum," emphasized that this communication is synonymous with the person of Jesus Christ.

"Nonetheless," Pizziolo writes, "such an obvious fact cannot at all be taken for granted today. The sensibility of today's culture, including religious culture, tends to equate all of the existing religions, placing them all on the same level. Does not the idea perhaps appear again that religion � every religion, and therefore Christianity as well � is nothing other than a product of the human spirit? That so-called 'revelation' is nothing other than a generic and inexpressible experience of the transcendent, exclusively the fruit of religious sentiment?"

Pizziolo concludes:

"In the light of these brief notes, one may understand the importance of the themes touched upon in the encyclical 'Pascendi'. The encyclical addresses the foundations of the Catholic faith, at a moment in history in which these appear to have been brought seriously into question. It must certainly be said that the problems raised by the authors accused of modernism were real problems: the relationship between faith and history, and between faith and science; the relation between human conscience and divine revelation; the relationship between the human language of dogma and the supernatural truth that it expresses; the meaning of authority in the Church... But it must also be affirmed that many of the solutions proposed were not compatible with the Catholic faith. This led to the need for intervention by the magisterium.

"We can also add that the magisterium of the time did not have access to a form of theology adequate for facing the questions that the new modern culture was raising. In this sense, the intention of the encyclical was not that of resolving all the problems under discussion, but that of reaffirming the identity and the integrity of the Catholic faith, reassigning to theology the task of reconsidering the topics in question. We can certainly recognize Vatican Council II as a result of this renewed reflection, but without imagining that all the questions that arose during the modernist period have found adequate and definitive answers. These questions remain, to a great extent, very relevant, and demand new efforts of reflection. But in the light of the teaching of "Pascendi," this effort will have to be carried out in full respect for the identity of the faith, and of the tradition of that people of God which is the Church."

I read Pascendi Dominici Gregis a few years before converting. Reading it forced me to reevaluate the a priori assumptions of modernism. It changed how I valued certain aspects of modern scholarship.

Terry

Is everything in this encyclical a teaching of the Church's ordinary magisterium?

Joe

As far as I know, that is the case.

Dn. Robert

Are there any examples in history of anything in a papal encyclical or bull that was not either part of the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium of the Church?

I ask this because if everything in this encyclical is binding, then it would be heresy to assert that Moses is not the author of the pentateuch. Yet, in his Theology of the Body, Pope John Paul II appeals to the documentary hypothesis in order to distinguish between two creation narratives.

Joe

If you look at the Revised Divine Liturgy it appears that the Ruthenian bishops either never heard of "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" or reject it.

Don't forget that the notion of "authorship" in the ancient Middle Eastern culture was very broad. One of Moses' scribes could have actually recorded things, and Moses would be credited with authorship.

Also, don't forget that, for Catholics, the doctrine of papal infallibility doesn't apply to every teaching of a Pope, but only to the exercise of "ex cathedra" teaching. I remember reading that Pope Honorius was actually dug up, post mortem, and condemned for teaching heresy! There was also a Pope who taught that there was no particular judgement. He was called to task by theologians, and repented of his heresy.

But that is far different from accepting the common view that the Penteteuch is a compilation from varied sources.

Joe

But, even if the compiler was of the "school of Moses", one could attribute authorship to him.

Also, while the Church holds that teachings of the "ordinary magisterium" can be infallible, the Church also concedes that it is remotely possible that things taught by the "ordinary magisterium" could be in error. Only the "extraordinary magisterium" has the guarantee of infallibility.

Dn. Robert

Folks,

The Letter was addressed to the other bishops, not to everybody:


This was a disciplinary "heads up", intended specifically to address the problem of formation of priests in seminaries. So, the idea that St. Pius X is intending to teach specific doctrines to the whole world is inaccurate. He is concerned that professors were not teaching the sacred disciplines rigorously to those in priestly formation, and that thereby the faithful will be hurt when such men became priests.

The similarity with the situation in the Church over the last 50 years is not accidental, because many hierarchs, priests and heads of religious orders took Vatican II as permission to drop the emphasis on what the Pope here calls "scholastic theology" as opposed to "postive theology" which, if I remember correctly, includes Biblical studies, patristics, liturgics, history of the Church, etc.

I won't indulge in any conspiracy theories, but the lack of a "standard theology" now was noted recently in a book review by R.R. Reno in First Things:
( R.R. Reno, Theology After the Revolution [firstthings.com] )

His main point is probably:


That's about the same point St. Pius X is making in Pascendi.

Michael

Joe,

You ask the best questions. Ordinary magisterium is not infallible but still requires the obsequium religiosum, religious assent of the will of the faithful. But it is not irreformable.

In fact, with regard to scripture, much of Pascendi was superceded by Dei Verbum. However, there remains a practical tension between the two as illustrated by the popes new book, Jesus of Nazareth in which he rejects a religious studies approach to scripture while acknowleging our indebtedness to modern scholarship.