www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Modernism in Eastern Catholicism or Orthodoxy?

In another topic area, some converts to Orthodoxy sited the banality of the modern Latin Rite Catholic Mass and the modernism/liberalism that has infected much of the Latin Church.

As a Latin Rite Catholic 'looking East' to escape these problems, I don't want to change Rites only to find that the Eastern Bishops are heading in the same direction as the West, only slower. Any information on the state of the Byzantine Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in this regard would be appreciated.

I understand what you are saying. However, can any church be completely immune from the age in which it finds itself? People in any church seem to be influenced by the culture around them. Other than moving to the desert, I don't know how one could get completely away from that.

I have heard of accusations of modernism in Orthodoxy. But it has never been clear to me what anyone means. I have yet to meet an Orthodox priest who denies the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist or who denies that Christ rose bodily from the dead, though I'm sure there are a few out there. In Orthodoxy we usually argue over whether the royal doors should remain open during the entire liturgy or whether Vesperal Liturgies are canonical, or whether women should commune when they are menstrating. My guess is that a modernist in Orthodoxy would say that women can commune when menstrating, they don't have to cover their heads in Church, vesperal liturgies on high feast days are acceptable, the priest can read the eucharist prayers out loud, and the royal doors can stay open during the entire liturgy.

Joe

There was a great article (about 16 years ago) in Touchstone Magazine (written by Fr Reardon, I believe) about this question. In essence, he asserted that no church is immune from the pressures of the modern world and he warned converts not to join the Eastern Church just to "escape" modernism. However, he then went on to argue that the different ethos of the Eastern Church means that the issues in the Eastern Church are VERY different than the Western Church and that converts need to be careful NOT to bring their baggage with them as they convert. What looks like modernism in the West is not necessarily modernism in the East.

I don't know if there is a link to this article or if anyone else has it, but at the time of my conversion it was a very helpful article.

I just found the link:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=04-04-015-f

That was a really good post.

-- John

In the West, it is modernism to argue for married clergy. In the East, to argue AGAINST married clergy is an unacceptable innovation, at the very least.

"Modernism" is abundently present in both the Roman Catholic and bulk of the Orthodox Church. What I mean is these churches have in their own way accepted, either by choice or force (or one would say surrender), aspects of the modern, western world view. The only churches that I would say have not been affected are the smaller, inwardly focused, rigorist churches. They are the ones who I would say are the only churches to really reject as a whole the cultural and philosophical precepts of the modern world.

asianpilgrim:

In the West, modernism means that we deny the miracles in the scriptures as anything more than myth, that we believe that everything is able to be changed to suit our comfort and convenience, that no one has the right to exercise an authority that can compel obedience from anyone, and that the individual's conscience is the sole authority for deciding all religious and moral questions. (This last seems to me to be a parallel to the Protestant sola scriptura argument.

In Christ,

BOB

Actually I think that's the Enlightenment, which preceded Modernism.


That's actually consumerism, which I would say is not necessarily modernism as such.


That may be post-modernism.


Sola scriptura in my opinion is actually a prime example of pre modern belief.

Some clarifications are in order. Modernism is what Pope St. Pius X labeled as a "synthesis of all heresies". It is a complete subjectivism in religious questions. At the heart of it is a denial that there can be any such thing as objective truth. "My truth is as good as your truth". Religion is reduced to a "funny inner feeling". Everything is sort of a "grey mist". The notion of Dogma is repugnant. Everything is grounded in "feelings". What has provided a philosophical underpinning for theological Modernism is philosophical rationalism, which posits that we can't know anything except that which can be perceived by the senses. Thus, the hostility toward miracles and supernatural occurences, even in Holy Scripture. Primarily, this is a Western virus. It all began with the Enlightenment (which was an outgrowth of the Reformation), which first effected Protestantism, and was introduced into the Catholic Church by certain Jesuits (Tyrell, et al). It was the product of a crisis of faith in the wake of the Darwinian theory of evolution. I have heard and seen Orthodox accuse each other of Modernism, but no Orthodox I know of have bought into any of the above. The only people I have met in Eastern Catholicism who one could suspect of Modernism are those overly (and probably innocently) influenced by "progressivists" of the Western Church. It is my opinion that the East has escaped most of this because of the constant occurrence of persecution in recent centuries.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Deacon Robert's definition is exactly right...I would just go one more step back and say the start before Protestantism-Enlightenment-Modernism there was HUMANISM that state man is the measure of all things, rather than God. Modernism and modern practices (i.e. communion in hand, etc.) are different. modern practices would be a completely new, and interesting, thread.

Quoting Protestants or 'liberal' individuals like Karl Rahner or Teilhard de Chardin would qualify as modernist influence. Also, referring to Protestant 'theology' on the same level as Orthodox or traditional Catholic theology would be an example of theological problems.

AMM:

My attempt to be a bit sarcastic was also an attempt to summarize the situation in many Latin parishes that I have lived and worked in during the past 40+ years. It's meant to be a sad commentary, but a refelction of what I have heard not only from some clergy but also the attitude picked up by poorly catechised laypeople.

In Christ,

BOB

I understood your post and thought that it was a very good post.

In Christ,
Alice

ALICE:

Good morning.

I've also heard a summary of what it means to be Catholic after the Vatican Council of the 1960s that makes me shudder. After all the rhetoric, some people think that all that's needed is to go to Mass on Sunday--or at least on Christmas and Easter--and be "under the pope." You don't have to do anything all week, even pray; you don't have to won a Bible or a prayerbook or even a rosary. I've even commented to some of my Protestant colleagues that for many of my co-religionists, if possession of religious paraphernalia were to become a crime, they wouldn't be convicted of a misdemeanor in court.

In Christ,

BOB