As most close observers of Catholicism today are no doubt aware, there has arisen over the past 15 years or so a movement that goes by the rather vague moniker of “radical traditionalism”. The exact theological and sociological contours of the movement need not concern us here. But the one thing that many traditionalists seem to have in common is a strong belief that the Church, since Vatican II, has become infected with the theological errors of “Modernism”. The accusation goes beyond the usual identification of very liberal prelates and theologians as Modernists and now includes a strong revisionist rereading of all modern popes, from John XXIII to Pope Leo XIV, as at least “tainted” with Modernism.
This narrative then becomes the raison d’être for an advocacy of an ecclesial discipline that is a retrenchment and a restoration of the anti-Modernist form of the Church. The vast majority of traditionalists stop short of the silliness of the sede vacantists. But their position involves the claim that the Council, the theologians who formed the Council, and the papacies that followed, are all “compromised” by an essentially Modernist impulse. You see this view expressed constantly on social media, in comboxes, and in my email inbox. Yes, this is anecdotal and impressionistic, but I stand by those impressions.
What was Modernism?
But what was Modernism? And is it true that many influential modern theologians, usually thought of as orthodox, as well as many prelates and even popes, are, in fact, Modernists?
The accusation is important because many of the theologians who influenced Vatican II are alleged to have been Modernists or, at the very least, as noted, were “tainted” with Modernism. The list of names so accused is a long one. To name just a few: Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, Joseph Ratzinger, Karol Wojtyla, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Jean Danielou. Two of those men later became pope, so these are serious accusations that go beyond theological quibbles over trivial matters. Indeed, they cut to the very core of the authenticity and legitimacy of the contemporary Church.
However, Modernism as a theological movement is notoriously difficult to define. Like its binary opposite, “fundamentalism,” it is a term often misused in a dismissive and lazy manner to cast suspicion at a thinker without the hard work of actually engaging in his arguments. My claim is that many contemporary self-identifying “traditionalist” Catholics, when they accuse thinkers such as Joseph Ratzinger, Wojtyla, Henri de Lubac, or von Balthasar of Modernism, are using the term in precisely the lazy way mentioned above.
Nevertheless, and despite the difficulty of arriving at a precise definition, we need to get a handle on just what is meant by the term, to assess the claim that many seemingly orthodox theologians, prelates, and popes are infected with the bacillus of Modernism.
Early in the twentieth century, there were a few Catholic theologians whose theology was viewed by Rome as overly influenced by modern scripture scholarship, modern philosophy, and deeply subjectivist modern understandings of the act of faith. This prompted the Vatican under St. Pius X to label them as “Modernists”, which led to the pope’s September 1907 anti-modernism encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (“Feeding the Lord’s Flock”). Earlier in July of that same year, the Holy Office had already issued, with papal approval, the document, Lamentabili Sane (“With Lamentable Results”), which contained a new version of the “syllabus of errors” that were theological propositions which the Holy Office condemned as heretical.
Most theologians, even conservative ones, agree that there probably was no organized movement of theological thought that can be easily pinpointed as Modernist. Instead, there was a generalized rejection in secular and liberal Protestant circles of the main claims of Catholicism, which made use of the categories of modern philosophy, science, and historical-critical exegesis of the Bible.
As Pius X notes in Pascendi, the assault on Catholicism by non-Catholics was bad enough. But the real problem resided in the fact that there were Catholic priests theologizing while using these same modern academic tools and calling for radical changes to the Church in both governance and doctrine. In other words, the enemy outside the gates had important sympathizers within the gates. And for Pius X, this was a bridge too far.
The two men everyone agrees were the main targets of the Vatican were the French priest Alfred Loisy (1857-1940) and the Anglo-Irish Jesuit and convert George Tyrrell (1861-1909). Pope Pius X especially condemned any such theology that placed modern scripture scholarship, modern philosophy, and subjective religious experience above the magisterium of the Church.
Whether the thought of those two theologians condemned by Pius X was accurately described need not concern us here. The important thing is to note what Pius X considered to be the essence of the Modernist view. And that was Modernism’s emphasis upon using the categories of modern philosophy (especially Kant) to champion a purely subjective and expressivist view of religious truth; the use of modern, anti-supernaturalist, secular historical critical exegesis of the Bible; and a form of religious agnosticism and relativism that flows from these premises.
It has become fashionable in some theological circles to view Pascendi as a huge step backward. However, the text is remarkably sophisticated and prescient. It identified real theological problems in much of modern thought. Nevertheless, overall, it is an almost completely defensive document, and when combined with later disciplinary action from the Holy Office, it caused a dark pall to descend upon Catholic theology in the form of a stifling intellectual atmosphere of fear. The anti-modernist forces had committed the Church to a scorched-earth rejection of all things intellectually modern, and many fine theologians found themselves under deep suspicion from Rome.
The rise of ressourcement theology
Many of those theologians came from a theological movement in the early to mid-20th century best described as “ressourcement theology”. Ressourcement means a “return to the sources”, which in the context of the times denoted a retrieval of the theology of the Church fathers (patristics) as well as a greater emphasis on the Scriptural foundations of theology. The Church was rightfully suspicious of modern scripture scholarship at that time due to its strong anti-supernaturalist biases. But the ressourcement theologians believed that, nevertheless, there was much of value in that scholarship that could be put to use in an orthodox manner once stripped of its errors.
To put ressourcement theology into further historical context, the theologians involved were concerned with the then reigning hegemony of scholastic/Thomistic theology in the Church and the subsequent sclerotic narrowing of the Church’s intellectual life to a single strand of her grand tradition. For these thinkers, the challenge presented by the explosion of scientific knowledge in the modern world, as well as the rise of liberal democracy (often in ways in direct opposition to the Church), and the increasing power of secular modes of thought and culture, made it imperative that the Church not meet this challenge with one hand tied behind its back. They sensed that there was a need to retrieve the fullness of the Tradition, confident that the broader Catholic intellectual tradition possessed the necessary resources to deal with the challenge presented to it by modernity.
I hasten to add that this attempt at broadening the Church’s theology beyond the confines of the Thomistic/scholastic synthesis did not entail, in either theory or in practice, the denial of the importance of St. Thomas Aquinas. Indeed, von Balthasar quotes Thomas more than any other thinker in his grand theological trilogy, even attributing to him what Balthasar considers to be the greatest breakthrough in the history of philosophy: Thomas’s famous “real distinction” between essence and existence in creaturely being. And de Lubac spent the better part of his theological career attempting to prove that the theology of Thomas Aquinas did not posit a sharp distinction between nature and grace, with grace being viewed as an extrinsic “add on” to an already complete in itself human nature. He further accused the neo-scholastics of holding to this erroneous view of the relation between nature and grace, and therefore that they did not understand Thomas very well at all, at least on this topic.
Was de Lubac correct in this? I think he was, but that need not detain us here. The point I am making is that the debate was not one where the Church fathers were pitted against Thomas, with the ressourcement thinkers and the neo-scholastics on opposite sides of the skirmish line. It was instead, at least in part, a debate about the proper interpretation of Thomas as such, with ressourcement thinkers placing him within the broader context of patristic thought (as well as a retrieval of the platonic elements in Thomas), and the neo-scholastics who wanted to keep Thomas firmly within the commentatorial tradition (e.g. the brilliant Cardinal Cajetan and Francisco Suárez, et al.) with a nod toward thinkers who emerged after Leo XIII and his reenergizing of Thomistic studies with his encyclical Aeterni Patris (1879).
In contemporary circles, the ressourcement movement is largely identified with the journal Communio: International Catholic Review, and now also with the new Word on Fire journal, The New Ressourcement. There is also now a wonderful neo-Thomist revival going on, which we can see in journals including Nova et Vetera and The Thomist. The ongoing conversations between these two movements are both exhilarating and deeply helpful for the modern Church. May it flourish and prosper.
Vindication amid continued challenges
But such irenic debates between two orthodox schools of thought were not always so peaceful. The detractors of ressourcement theology in the first half of the twentieth century described it pejoratively as la Nouvelle theologie (“The New Theology”). In order to grasp why this is a derogatory (and even dangerous) label, one needs to understand two things.
First, these critics were in the main the old vanguard of the neo-scholastic synthesis (e.g., Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange), and they dominated the Roman Pontifical universities and wielded tremendous influence within the Holy Office. They were wedded to the notion that orthodox Catholic doctrine was deeply embedded within the Thomistic and scholastic intellectual tradition, and so any deviation from this theological system was a threat to the stability of Catholic doctrine as such, and potentially, Modernist. Therefore, theological stability over time was seen as one of the hallmarks of the glories of “fortress Catholicism”, and theological “novelty” was treated in an a priori fashion as inherently suspicious. Calling a theological movement “new” was considered an insult, as if it represented the repackaging in shiny new ways of what were nothing more than tired and stale old Modernist heresies.
Second, it is a dangerous label precisely because of the implications for theology as a true ecclesial vocation in the Church. Most, if not all, of the ressourcement theologians were not “Modernists” in the sense spelled out by Pascendi. They were thoroughly orthodox theologians, and most of them, including de Lubac, Ratzinger, and von Balthasar, were dismissed by the mainstream academic theological guild after the Council as hopelessly conservative reactionaries. I discovered this during my Ph.D. studies at Fordham, where Balthasar and Ratzinger were deeply frowned upon.
Therefore, it is an indication of how oppressive the intellectual atmosphere had become in the pre-conciliar Church that the accusation against these same thinkers, later thought to be hopelessly reactionary, was that they were engaged in a dangerous theological “novelty” by the Holy Office. For example, Henri de Lubac suffered greatly in the “anti-Modernist” pre-conciliar atmosphere, especially after Pius XII appeared to condemn de Lubac’s views in the encyclical Humani Generis. He was later rehabilitated by St. Pope John XXIII and played an important role at the Council and was subsequently made a cardinal by St. Pope John Paul II.
The main pre-Conciliar Roman concern with the ressourcement thinkers was that they dared to read Thomas anew through the lens of the Fathers. Furthermore, they dared to make use of modern philosophical movements such as phenomenology and existentialism, even though they were at pains to use only those elements that were fruitful for the elucidation of orthodox forms of theology. They also dared to emphasize the importance of viewing human nature as constitutively relational and embedded within an eschatological historical horizon, even as they were clear that the Church is indeed in the here and now, the Kingdom of God in nuce. They further dared to emphasize that the objective and subjective modes of truth are not at odds with one another and are mutually involved with one another in a kind of epistemological perichoresis.
In short, they challenged no central doctrines of the Church and merely sought to deepen our understanding of the same. Fortunately, they were vindicated at the Council, and two of them (Wojtyla and Ratzinger) became popes. The Council they helped to shape was, obviously, not without its flaws, as all councils have flaws. But the ecclesiology, soteriology, Christology, and theological anthropology it championed were anything but “Modernist” as any fair reading of the actual texts proves.
There were indeed theological elements at the Council that seemed to modify, or even reverse, some elements of previous teaching. The teachings on religious freedom, interreligious and ecumenical dialogue, collegiality, stand out as, at the very least, different in tone and tenor from previous teachings. All of that can be debated. All of it can be held up for further theological scrutiny.
But what it is not is “Modernism” in the sense that Pascendi understood that term. Neither the Council nor the main ressourcement theologians were champions of an aggressively secular use of historical-critical exegesis. Nor were they champions of a runaway subjectivism and expressivist religious relativism. Nor did they replace Thomas Aquinas or the Fathers with Kant and Hegel.
There are indeed radically revisionist and improper revolutionary elements in the Church today. They must be resisted. But Popes John Paul and Benedict, and the main ressourcement thinkers, and the Council itself, are not among them.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Faithful Thomism is the authentic ressourcement because, as the Church has taught for centuries, Thomas best knew and articulated what the patristic sources say: he unpacks the Fathers, who on their own sometimes contradict or appear to contradict each other or even themselves. Returning to the sources apart from or contrary to the wisdom of Thomas is, I’d argue at this point in time, either not Catholic because it rejects the Church’s wisdom to learn from the Common Doctor or not catholic (lowercase c) because it doesn’t see the whole or the unity of patristics, similar to how it’s wrong to pick an isolated passage of scripture—we must apply the principle of the unity of scripture. Real Thomism seeks to find the common belief in the thought of believers. Ressourcement that doesn’t include Thomas, I’d say, isn’t Catholic. Thomas can be wrong, here and there, but we’d be wrong to reject him. One troubling area for me as I returned to JPII’s Theology of the Human Person, aka Theology of the Body, was his interpretation of Genesis as not historical, which is unnecessary to arrive at his conclusions. He forces what are more and more commonly rejected historical criticism when he could simply highlight the possible spiritual sense to show a rich understanding of human love. But when we read such a magisterial tome, it seems to have solidified that approach to scripture into the soul of the Church. Perhaps Ratzinger-Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth series can help divorce future generations from this approach without throwing the baby out with the bath water. As for Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, we can hope for him to be canonized and named Doctor of the Mystical Life of the Laity. Few fought harder to advance what Lumen Gentium calls the universal call to holiness. It’s not about obey the commandments simply, but that obedience will come as a result of union with God through mystical asceticism. We are all called to a deep prayer life, something the Fathers take for granted and Thomas knew and lived. The academic theologian today can have his doctorate and be unbelieving or not practicing. The ultimate return to the source is through mystical asceticism, living the Christian life, which ordinary Catholics do with set aside quiet time daily, the Rosary daily, and mortification resulting in joy.
The term “Modernism” does not serve to clarify, nor does it lead to understanding and discerning the beliefs of people who are speaking and teaching in the Church.
The term “Apostasy” is useful, in that it serves to distinguish between faithfulness and unfaithfulness.
For faithful men and women who are theologians, theology is what Pope Benedict and others defined as: “Faith seeking understanding.”
For apostate men and women who are theologians, “their theology” is “denial seeking a foothold inside the Church.”
Celebrity Bishops of the apostate theology include Cardinal Walter Kasper, the favored theologian of the Pontiff Francis.
Etc, etc…
The primary concern is the ultimate concern, and that concern is not about who denies Walter Kasper or Alfred Loisy, or Joseph Ratzinger or Herri de Lubac.
The single concern is this: Who of these men are faithful to Jesus, and his revelation in the New Testament, and who among them deny Jesus and the New Testament. That’s not only more important to discern, it is much easier to discern.
CIM: My sentiments exactly. Let’s get to the heart of the matter regarding what tears at the Body of Christ (and it isnt ressourcement v. Thomism).
Yes, BUT. Thomists tended to reason and then articulately clear WHY.
Thomist Abbot Vonier’s book “The People of God” carefully analyzes and delineates that concept. VCII’s Lumen Gentium uses the concept with a slightly different slant. Lumen Gentium, decidedly pastoral and ecumenically open, rendered the
‘people of God’ with more fluidity, referencing a 1949 Acta Apostolicae Sedis which specifically addressed RCC’s judicial procedures for Eastern Catholic Churches, using it as justification for its ‘people’ concept. Lumen Gentium enlarged the people of God to include those whose boundaries to Catholicism could be both invisible. Who then are the people of God? Does anyone really know now that the Spirit seems to reside in everyone, no matter their beliefs and behavior?
Vonier says: “The great Doctor [Aquinas] is far from denying the existence and validity of precepts for the Christian; but he says that all those precepts are either a preparation for the coming of the Spirit, who is the supreme Lawgiver, or they are practical results of the presence of that same Spirit. The Christian is either prepared for the Spirit by the full teaching of his faith or he acts in accordance with all the precepts of the law of love. But this preparation is not possible without the grace of the Spirit, nor is fidelity to all the teachings of the Gospel possible without the Spirit. So when everything has been said, the grace of the Spirit is the central factor in the whole conduct of the People of God.”
Vonier spells Aquinas’ clarifying the sign of the Spirit: “Fidelity to all the teachings of the Gospel.” Some Catholics cringe to hear other Catholic Christians (including our lately departed pope) claiming signs of the Holy Spirit where we faithful knew He was not.
Thank you Ed.
Amen, Chris. Have you read Bouyer’s Memoirs?
https://web.archive.org/web/20170509194849/http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/2015/08/12/contra-mundum/
St. Thomas always prayed before study or dictation and left us this prayer:
“Ineffable Creator,
Who, from the treasures of Your wisdom,
have established three hierarchies of angels,
have arrayed them in marvelous order
above the fiery heavens,
and have marshaled the regions
of the universe with such artful skill . . .
grant to me keenness of mind,
capacity to remember,
skill in learning,
subtlety to interpret,
and eloquence of speech.
May You guide the beginning of my work,
direct its progress, and bring it to completion.”
Without God guiding our intellect, the foolishness of modernism asserts itself. Raymond Marcin spelled that out below.
Meiron:
Yes, I have read Bouyer’s memoirs, and refer to it often when discussions of the repulsive fraud Herr Bugnini are offered up.
And I also share your admiration of Abbot Vonier. I have and have read his book in The Eucharist, which is eye-opening.
After Bouyer, then this:
https://angelicopress.com/products/a-wider-view-of-vatican-ii
Shot an arrow at a target – and hit it!- that most of us are not looking at, or troubled about. Aim instead at the admittedly “radical revisionist and revolutionary elements in the Church”. That’s the targets we’d like to see you hit.
I have aimed many, many articles at the target you suggest. I would recommend you search my name in the archives of CWR to see how many articles I have written against the “liberal/progressive” wing of the Church. I would draw your attention in particular to my many pieces against synodality and the entire thrust of the Francis papacy in that endeavor.
Furthermore, even if you are not looking at the issue of what Modernism actually is and even if you do not care about ressourcement theology, the fact remains that there are things of importance, believe it or not, that have nothing to do with whatever it is interests you in particular. I know that seems shocking, but it is true.
Mr. Chapp: References in posted threads are subject to misunderstandings. Responding to your post recorded at February 2, 2026 at 2:11 am that had no reply button.
I do respect your efforts in defending our faith and agree with you, to risk sounding obsequious, 99 percent of the time. My reuse of the characterization “fantasy” was in specific defense of a previous poster expressing a frustrated observation that much of mainstream catholic commentary does demean critics of VII without even noting their objections. It was not a reference to you. In defending him, I did clearly say: “I believe he criticizes Catholic writers, in general”
On the other hand, I can’t believe you have never indulged trivializations. “You say, “As most close observers of Catholicism today are no doubt aware, there has arisen over the past 15 years or so a movement that goes by the rather vague moniker of “radical traditionalism”.
No, this “radical” term has been a disparagement applied by those more dismissive than reading their concerns, similar to progressive political pundits labeling everyone else right-wing extremists. Traditionalists might verbally repeat “radical” in jest while pointing out that traditionalism represents more than a century of thought.
You said: “This narrative then becomes the raison d’être for an advocacy of an ecclesial discipline that is a retrenchment and a restoration of the anti-Modernist form of the Church. The vast majority of traditionalists stop short of the silliness of the sede vacantists. But their position involves the claim that the Council, the theologians who formed the Council, and the papacies that followed, are all “compromised” by an essentially Modernist impulse.”
Well, as we just reminded clearly during the worst pontificate in history, human vanity can easily infuse theology, and it can affect groupthink to such a large scale that enshrines corruption in the Church. And most traditionalists do admire every pope before Francis, although voice valid criticisms of their management abilities.
Traditionalists make distinctions for which they are seldom given credit, like most actually agree with elements of one of Rahner’s most famous formulations. I never learned all the details of his theology, but in my conversion process from atheism, I did start to feel welcomed by Rahner’s use of “anonymous Christian.” I made efforts to be a charitable man in my years of no faith, and it was assuring to know that God never disowned me.
No less than “rad trad” Archbishop Lefebvre advanced the same idea, both drawing from Our Lord: “Not everyone that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Apparently well-meaning conservatives can fail to make distinctions about extreme sedevacantists, who are not traditionalists, but reference the label as a basis for not even considering the non-silly implications and meaning of an organized campaign in 2013 for electing a specific Cardinal in direct contradiction of Canon law that would invalidate such an election.
I know you’ve been critical of much liberal/progressivism, but you create a false equivalency of guilt with traditionalism. Liberals describe their snide, often childish, outright rejection of doctrine as “asking questions,” But traditionalists ask actual questions of grave matter that are not in any way “silly”.
Of course there can be strains of vanity among some traditionalists. As a physicist, I am frustrated by those thinking they defend the faith when taken in by a recent rise in lecturers promoting neo-geocentric theories about the solar system. They damage Catholic witness while they think they defend it by publicly surrendering to such idiocy. It’s not easy explaining how the entire solar system would collapse almost instantly if the solar system were somehow forced to have earth as its center.
On the other hand, a Darwinist understanding of biological life has been thoroughly discredited on scientific grounds, not that ideological religion hating scientists want to honestly face the affront to their vanity it would be to undermine condescension towards bible thumpers. Yet many traditionalists have noted this scientific fact while our Church wrongly apologizes for having been wrong about Darwin.
It is impossible for we sinners to not have our thought tempted by our vanities. This applies to all of us.
Thank you for drawing distinctions about terms. I think the writer who uses the radtrad category, without definition, offends many. The writer does not denigrate the group; he denigrates his very self. Preening one’s own sense of pride at the expense of another group presents a sad picture of an even more sad vanity.
If you cringe at the image of a torn and beaten Christ hanging on a cross behind the altar; you’re a modernist
If the term “sacrifice of the Mass” unspets you: you’re a modernist.
If you enjoy the choir singing all of the peoples responses during the mass; you’re a modernist.
If you find comfort in worshipping in an auditorium devoid of Catholic symbolism: you’re a modernist.
In place of the stations of the cross you like seeing abstract flags; you’re a modernist.
If Gregorian Chanting grates your nerve endings; you’re a modernist.
If you respond in your loudest voice with “Thanks be to God” you’re a modernist.
If you’re irritated because the person ahead of you in Communion line knelt and expressed the desire to have the Body of Christ laced on his tongue; You’re a modernist.
Unlike the authors endless philosophical musings, I can express the differences clearly and endlessly. Oh yes.. there are more. lots more.
Thank you for this superb piece! Now I more richly understand what St. John Paul II summarized so well in the Introduction to his phenomenological “The Acting Person”(Reidel Publishing in 1979):
“As to the position of the relationship between anthropology and ethics in this approach […our “progressively comprehending the person”] it may be formulated–by analogy to operations used in algebra–as placing a term before brackets. We place outside of the brackets those factors of the algebraic expression which in one way or another are common to all the terms [!] of the expression, that is, which are somehow common to everything that remains within the brackets. The aim is to simplify subsequent operations and not to reject [!] what is withdrawn or to sever the relations of what is outside to what remains in brackets. On the contrary, the operation underlines and enhances the significance of the factor isolated from the expression. If it were not placed outside the brackets, it would remain hidden among the other terms of the expression, but it is now brought to light and given prominence” (p. 13).
Ressourcement is not Modernism.
I enjoy Larry Chapp’s writings, and enjoy issues like the history of modernism. References to people like du Lac, Congar, Balthasar, etc. are interesting. But where are we now?
Where we are now is that things after Vatican II were such that Pope John Paul II in 1990 issued the encyclical Ex Corde Ecclesiae, requiring a mandate from a bishop for teaching theologians to pledge to teach according to Catholic truth. It took the bishops eleven years until 2001 to say they would enforce the mandate. They have not, and it is my understanding that a majority of professors teaching theology in our Catholic colleges and universities have not requested the mandate, and some have actually refused the mandate and the bishops have not enforced it.
So, we can call what is being taught today modernism, or some other name, but it is not the theology taught 60 years ago.
Dr. Chapp,
Thank you for your article. I agree with you that the ongoing conversation between communio and the neo-Thomist revival will greatly benefit the Church. I take it on faith that the pre-conciliar Thomistic hegemony was stifling.
However, it seems the main beef that the Thomistic watchdogs had with the new theology is its attempt, not to recover the father, but to rethink theology which takes for granted Kant’s critique of reason, and then tries to redefine truth. Not as the mind’s conformity to truth, but as the mind’s conformity to life (see M. Blondel). Which is essentially another iteration of philosophy based primarily in the will and only secondarily in the intellect. It is M. Blonel who was a primary influence for the new theologians.
Such a philosophy hampers metaphysical reasoning and tends, by its own internal logic, toward univocalism. In my own research, it is precisely this will-based philosophy of Blondel that has lowered the metaphysical resistance within theology and has possibly given rise—if one takes the testimony of figures such as Gregory Baum—to various distortions, ranging from the fundamental option theory, to liberation theology, and ultimately to the collapse of the distinction between grace and nature.
The Thomistic synthesis—representing some 1,800 years of Western intellectual history—rests upon the primacy of esse and the analogy of being. These principles allowed Thomas to receive the Platonic-theological tradition of the Fathers and to ground it firmly in substance, such that participation is no longer a vague or merely symbolic notion, but a finite reception of the infinite plenitude of Being by an essence. Without the analogy of being, this synthesis cannot be sustained; and without a philosophy possessing a genuinely metaphysical range, as emphasized in Fides et Ratio, the analogy itself cannot be preserved.
At the same time, it seems to me that something is often lacking in contemporary Thomism, and here Communio theology may offer a salutary reminder both to the Church and to Thomists themselves. I cannot yet define this deficiency with precision, but I can gesture toward it. It concerns the proper ordering of ratio to intellectus: scientific and discursive reason must remain a servant rather than a master. Theology begins in direct intellectual apprehension and ought to return to it. What is apprehended is form, which is disclosed above all through beauty, a mode of manifestation that both reveals and conceals God. Symbol, in this sense, is the proper mode of manifestation of divine things to the human intellect. It does not replace metaphysics, but exceeds scientific discourse in its adequacy to the mystery it signifies, and the intellect must continually return to it as the fitting expression of divine truth.
This account of symbol draws in part on Jean Borella, while my reading of Aquinas has been shaped by Matthew Minerd and other contemporary Thomist scholars.
~james
Thank you for the succinct articulation of what others cannot easily understand or say.
A large part of the monolith fortress Catholicism is that neo scholasticism didn’t comprehensively understand the width and the depth of Aquinas. For one, that it wasn’t a ‘system’, rather more the settlement of perennial principles for the pursuit of truth.
Ressourcement theologians attempted to restore Christianity to its origins as said by Chapp, and in the effort made advances in the interpretation of the thought of Aquinas, as not a closed system rather one open to advancement. We see this quite clearly in John Paul’s reevaluation of the German Bishops’ sanction of Max Scheler’s existential phenomenology [it was Scheler not John Paul who coined the term The Acting Person].
About Aquinas as not proposing a closed “system” and, in addition, his “famous ‘real distinction’ between essence and existence in creaturely being” (Chapp), we can arrive at the later natural science of Big Bang theory–which was first proposed by the Belgian priest and cosmologist Georges Lemaitre SJ in the 1920s.
The irreducible distinction between, on the one hand, a physical universe (200 billion galaxies, each with an average of 200 billion stars) extrapolated backward to a point of infinite density and infinite smallness (less than the head of a pin), and, on the other hand, the radical existence–rather than the non-existence–of this “singularity.” The existence of all created and physical stuff as due to a Creator who is totally spiritual and absolutely transcends His freely given Creation.
Today’s version of Modernism tends toward the ancient heresy of Monism–the notion that God is only the highest rung in the ladder of self-sufficient (c)reation, but not distinct from created and self-sufficient stuff. In the political and “social science” realm, then, we have Lenin who said of our creaturely contingency: “this question is not permitted to Socialist man.”
Somewhere in his 13th-century writings in the natural sciences, Aquinas is not closed in this way, but even anticipates the 17th-century Galileo–by suggesting that the Ptolemaic “eccentrics and epicycles” of the sun and planets around the earth might be better explained by some other theory[!].
A small part of the challenging coherence of faith and reason, and Aquinas’ “settlement of perennial principles for the pursuit of truth.”
Thank you. I decided to see how Google would answer this question, made by editing your statement:
Google search terms: where in his 13th-century writings in the natural sciences did Aquinas anticipate the 17th-century Galileo–by suggesting that the Ptolemaic “eccentrics and epicycles” of the sun and planets around the earth might be better explained by some other theory
AI Overview begins
Thomas Aquinas anticipated the limitations of the Ptolemaic system regarding “eccentrics and epicycles” in his 13th-century work, Commentary on Aristotle’s De Caelo (On the Heavens), Book II, Lecture 17.
In this text, Aquinas acknowledges that astronomical models—such as epicycles and eccentrics—are used to “save the appearances” (explain the observed motions of the planets), but he explicitly points out that these are not necessarily true.
Key aspects of this anticipation include:
• The Argument: Aquinas notes that while Ptolemaic assumptions allow for calculations that match observations, they do not constitute a strict proof, as another method might one day be found that could also explain the appearances.
• The Limitation of “Saving the Appearances”: He argues that just because a certain hypothesis or model (like epicycles) explains the data, it does not mean that this hypothesis is the actual physical reality, as there may be other ways, not yet grasped, to explain the motions.
• Connection to Galileo: This perspective shares a similar skepticism with the scientific revolution that would follow, acknowledging that the mathematical, geocentric models of the time might be provisional rather than ultimate physical truths.
While Aquinas was not a heliocentric proponent and did not suggest the Copernican system himself, his willingness to question the necessity of the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic, complex, nested-sphere model allowed for a philosophical space where the physical system could be different from what appeared.
A few supplemental clarifications to your insights:
What eventually became known as the Big Bang Theory stemmed from various scientists observing the expansion of the universe.
In 1922, Alexander Friedmann demonstrated that the universe had to either expand or contract. Moreover, based on something from a few years earlier in 1920 called The Great Debate regarding the scale of the universe, and which featured actual observations of galaxies and nebula, the claim that the universe was expanding became based on both theory and observational evidence.
In 1924, astronomer Knut Lundmark was the first scientist to actually provide observational evidence of the expansion of the universe itself, plus his calculations of the rate of expansion were more accurate than Edwin Hubble’s calculations in 1929. Fr. Lemaître’s observations in 1927 further confirmed the findings of Lundmark and the theory of Friedmann even though his work was not based on their work.
In 1931, Fr. Lemaître first proposed the notion of the primeval atom or cosmic egg, and that it burst/exploded to begin the expansion process. Later in 1949, in what was meant to be a dismissive insult, physicist Fred Hoyle referred to the theory as being based on a big bang starting it all. Ironically, the “big bang theory” caught on as a legitimate shorthand title for the theory.
However, what must be made crystal clear because too many people still err in this regard is that the Big Bang is not the first moment of the creation of the universe. Fr. Lemaître himself even had to correct Pope Pius XII who at one time jumped to the same false conclusion still believed by many that science had demonstrated the first moment of creation. Since creation is ex nihilo (out of nothing), no specific first moment is even a possibility to be so measured. Moreover, there is no such thing in our material universe that possesses any infinite quality like infinite density or infinite smallness.
Lastly, despite all of the great scientists involved with the discovery of the expanding universe and the big bang, none other than Edgar Allan Poe may have preceded them all by some three quarters of a century in presenting some non-scientifically tested speculations about the universe expanding as a result of an explosion that is remarkably similar to what became the big bang theory. 🙂
It is indeed difficult to get an exact, literal handle on the content of Modernism in Catholic theological doctrine, precisely because of what theological Modernism is. When Saint Pius X condemned it as a heresy in 1907, he was condemning it in all of its manifestations, pre-1907 and on into the indefinite future.
Igino Giordani, the biographer of Saint Pius X, explained the Modernism that plagued Saint Pius X’s papal reign (1903-1914) in words that apply to our present-day encounters with it:
“Modernism consisted principally in a state of mind and way of life that sought to make over Christianity, rationalistically explaining away its difficulties to make the religion acceptable to the thinking of the day.”
Because Modernism seeks to make “the thinking of the day” an influential criterion for discerning Catholic truths, the content of Modernist thought about Catholic truths will vary with “the thinking of the day.”
Accessing the thinking of the day in order to reconcile our Church with the modern world means there can be no fixed eternal Catholic Truth at all in Modernist thought. Modernist thought changes with the times to conform to the times. It is what Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who became Pope Benedict XVI) was referencing when he cautioned against an unrestrained and unfiltered openness to “the wisdom of the world” which (the Bible tells us) God regards as “foolishness.” Thus, the very essence of the heresy of Modernism.
The article presented gives an overview of the ressourcement theologians that must include a significant point: that the blueprint of “development of doctrine” was set by the likes of Rudolf Bultmann, with his demythologization of Jesus and miracles, resorting to a Heideggerian self-authentification, a Kantian existential experience, a Blondelian mind and will, and with modern dialogue thrown in for good measure. This is the stuff of which affected our much-loved and respected ressourcement theologians, to the point of throwing the Thomist baby out with the bath water in many cases – and the result of these Modernist residues in our Church today is obvious. Hopefully the pendulum will settle in the middle now with the Aquinas ressourcement in effect, along with the patristic Church Fathers leading our theologians and seminaries to read wisely.
You’ve heard of St. John Henry Newman, Doctor of the Church, right? Seriously.
Touché
Traditionalists’ strongest critique of Nouvelle Theologie (which Chapp doesn’t even bother to address here) is that it de facto adopts St Pius X’s condemnation of the intrinsic evolution of dogma in Pascendi . The continued promotion and sympathy that a figure like Teilhard de Chardin gets across the spectrum from De Lubac on the “the right” to JPII in the “center” to Bergoglio on “the left” is emblematic of an adoption of the vitalist principle condemned in Pascendi . More to the point, Communio defenders will often cite to the writings of Popes particularly John Paul II that reaffirm Catholic tradition while being open to the good in modern thought. A critique I would level is that these on the “books” affirmations are seriously undermined when they are contradicted with constant dialogue. We condemn relativism, but then promote all manner of ecumenical events that give the impression that the Catholic Church is just one path of many, the “privileged path” to quote Bishop Baron. Chapp will naysay all of this and point to the “rock solid” writings of his favorite Churchmen, but the divergence between doctrine and praxis is another strong critique, leveled by St. Pius X at modernist.
The article raises an additional point as well regarding tone deafness. A vast majority of people in the Church today believe that doctrine changes and that doctrine did change at Vatican II. Large numbers of prelates apparently believe this as well, if the German Synodal way is any evidence. Yet here we have another blog post by Larry Chapp, doing the “heavy lifting” of punching down at rad trads and mocking groups like sedevacantists. Whatever their views, these groups numbers are so miniscule compared the numerous problems besetting the Church, problems that were not addressed by the nearly half century of Popes who Chapp considers great heroes. You would think too that instead of worrying about the “silliness” of sedevacantists Chapp might reflect on why the Church remains such a wasteland despite some 34 years of Communio Popes governing things.
Mortain,
The penetrating insights in your comment regarding yet another gaslighting attempt by L. Chapp to defend and praise Vatican II despite the obvious problems with many aspects of the council and the aftermath arising directly from it is a masterclass of demonstrating how objective reality demolishes a disingenuous fantasy and the propaganda that supports it. Thank you very much.
Whenever I come across yet another article of L. Chapp in defense of the fantasy council of his own making, I am reminded of the old quip by Groucho Marx: ‘Who are you gonna believe; me or your own eyes?’ Like you and others grounded in seeing things as they were and are, our own eyes are believed in rejecting the false assertions and narratives of one who seeks to blind us.
“… the fantasy council of his own making,…”
You make it impossible for me to take your remarks seriously.
“… the fantasy council of his own making…”
Hard to take your remarks seriously when you engage this sort of embarrassing slop.
I have the utmost respect for your thought Mr. Olson, but I believe he criticizes Catholic writers, in general, who treat the documents of VII as perfect, as sacrosanct as Scripture itself.
To implicitly believe they were not in any way flawed and beyond criticism can be construed as a “fantasy.”
And we all know correlations do not prove causality, but clearly much of the craziness of post VII practice has continuously found vague sentences here and there in the documents to slip away from orthodoxy.
Edward,
Many thanks for your honest assessment of what I actually wrote in my appreciation of the comments by Mortain. I also wrote a reply to your other spot on comments, but so far Mr. Olson has deigned not to publish them, perhaps because in praising you, they also point out the flaws in others’ views, and in doing so, Mr. Olson would rather mock them and me instead of substantively engaging what I wrote.
You are also basically correct that correlation does not prove causation, but this is so only in a majority of general propositions. However, when something follows directly from X and points to X as its rationale, then that specific correlation is also causation or in some cases an element of a multi-faceted cause. Also, the whole medical profession would not be able to help many people if they accepted as a general no exception axiom that correlation does not prove causation. Consider for example a legitimate vaccine given to millions, and as a result, the incidences of a particular disease drops dramatically. The correlation between the vaccine and the dramatic drop in the disease reflects that the vaccine did cause the beneficial effects that were observed later.
Thanks again for standing up for me in the realization that I was unjustly criticized and mocked for telling the truth. This may very well not be published by Mr. Olson, but I have seen your comments in other publications, so if my posts to you are not published here, I will find a way for you to receive them as well as my appreciation.
Edward,
Many thanks for your honest assessment of what I actually wrote in my appreciation of the comments by Mortain. These are also supported by your own refreshing insights into the reality of Vatican II in opposition to the fantasy version of Vatican II promoted by Chapp and fellow travelers who continue to wrongly insist that any problems with Vatican II and negative developments arising from them are just a matter of misinterpretation and misapplication.
You are also basically correct that correlation does not prove causation, but this is so only in a majority of general propositions. However, when something follows directly from X and points to X as its rationale, then that specific correlation is also causation or in some cases an element of a multi-faceted cause. Also, the whole medical profession would not be able to help many people if they accepted as a general no exception axiom that correlation does not prove causation. Consider for example a legitimate vaccine given to millions, and as a result, the incidences of a particular disease drops dramatically. The correlation between the vaccine and the dramatic drop in the disease reflects that the vaccine did cause the beneficial effects that were observed later.
Thanks again for standing up for me in the realization that I was unjustly criticized and mocked for telling the truth. This may very well not be published by Mr. Olson, but I have seen your comments in other publications, so if my posts to you are not published here, I will find a way for you to receive them as well as my appreciation.
No reply button Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, so I’ll post here.
First: Mr.Olson is always fairminded in what he publishes. I’ve stepped over the line at times in anger, but with re-editing my remarks were posted.
As a retired scientist, I can affirm that a cardinal rule of science is that it is always the case, not sometimes, always the case that correlating events in themselves never PROVE causality. This does not in any way imply they can’t. Correlations are merely preliminary observations. Proof and evidence are two different things. Two effects from the same event can be causally related or not.
It is especially proper in human events to always distinguish what appears to be causal and what is not. Historical events do not predetermine moral nor immoral responses among individuals, which is what Catholicism has always taught. People can choose to be heroic in the face of a demonic culture when most do not. Not all Germans were Nazis. And not all Catholics formed their individual responses to the faith by the event of VII, even when they decided to leave.
Nonetheless, in the post VII era Catholics have demonstrated a greater inclination to forget what Catholicism has always taught. Sin is not social. It is always personal. When we depersonalize sin, we suffer the natural effects from a loss of religious faith or simply a decrease in faith. We become more willing to submit to interpret all human problems and evil in the world as failures of insufficient social management of circumstances or situations whether there are clear indications of human malice or not.
Liberal “Catholics” have become obsessively political from the sort of loss of faith that says moral precepts cannot solve the problems of “new realities,” so we need the input of intellectual elites to provide “new insights” as if simple, natural, God given moral decency among the whole of humanity is not enough.
The stupidity of this vanity requires that we disregard that this implies the stupidity of and inadequacy of God for having deprived us of adequate innate knowledge of how we ought to order our lives together, especially those who preceded our age of a higher education industry replicating the classic vanities that say only the elite can lead us to a promised land that even God could not conceive.
The chief problem with pseudo-Catholic vanity is what we’ve commented on. Endless Catholic debating societies, which includes VII debates, and the blatant idiocy of Synods for and by the privileged self-anointed, has the effect of lying to humanity when we posture that what Catholicism believes is endlessly capricious, therefore everyone has the license of making up their own morality.
I attended the annual March for Life nine days ago. I’ve attended more than forty, but this is no heroic sacrifice. It is always joyous and energizing to be among a hundred thousand sane people. Yet, we experienced the perennial reality of an absence of our bishops who prefer to stay home and find ways to parrot the secular liberal establishment in preparing their public remarks advocating social engineering instead of objective morality.
Our theological deceptions enable us to not even care who gets hurt, or, well….killed.
Really Edward? Where in my article do I in any way imply that Vatican II is beyond criticism and is untouchable like Scripture? I state explicitly that the Council had flaws. All Councils do. Heck, it took several more councils to clear up what Nicaea meant by “homoousios”, which was a term from Greek philosophy that created its own furor. I have written elsewhere and on many occasions of the flaws of Vatican II. My views on the Council might be incorrect and are certainly open to robust theological debate. But a fantasy? That is just silly and is indicative of an unserious attempt at reading comprehension.
Furthermore, the article was not a jeremiad against any and all criticisms of the Council. As I said, I myself have criticized it. It is instead a defense of the Council against the charge that it was a “Modernist” council in the sense of that term used by Pius X. Again, we can debate that, but my defense of it against that charge is hardy a “fantasy”.
I do think fantasy is a fair word for a certain narrative (that I’ll describe below) that adherents of the Communio peddled during the JPII and Benedict years. Now, I don’t think Dr. Chapp is solely responsible or even mainly responsible for this, but you have people like George Weigel and others who made a career out of this narrative.
The narrative is that the post Conciliar chaos has now fortunately passed thanks to the singular brilliance and courage of Pope John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who channeled figures like De Lubac. Vatican II will now usher a “new evangelization.” Further, there were no real problems with the Second Vatican Council itself only hitherto withs implementation. Now the Council as been authoritatively interpreted and there were no tensions or contradictions and anyone who saw this was at best simple minded and at worse disobedient schismatics like the SSPX. I remember the 90s and the turn of the millennium, it was impossible to raise criticisms from the traditionalist side of what seemed like JPII’s ultimate triumph without being completely marginalized.
This narrative finally evaporated in 2013 with the election of Pope Francis. These issues had not been resolved, things had just been papered over. Now “settled matters” are all of sudden reopened, a large section of the Church in Germany has viscerally accepted a sin that would have been unthinkable at almost any other time in the Church’s history.
I suppose the stridency of my responses to Dr. Chapp (and by extension to Mr. Olson & Weigel) is that they seem more interested in reminding of us of things like “pre Vatican II Thomism was arid and stodgy in style” and “the pre-Vatican II Church wasn’t open to the ‘good’ in modern thought!” Okay fine. But those old Thomists? They are now long gone. They haven’t been calling the shots for a long time now. Now you need to own up to the fact that your school was in power and led the institution for the better part of a quarter of a century. The failure to do this and instead doubling down on how we need to recapture the spirit of 90s World Youth Days (Weigel) are why people are saying this is a fantasy.
Response to your response, Edward.
I disagree regarding the no exception rule to correlation and causation, and since you mentioned your credentials in support of the no exception rule, mine include teaching logic at the collegiate level wherein the correlation does not impy causation basic rule has appeared in many courses.
Consider: If 10 people come to me with a specific disease, and I give them a specific medicine and 5 minutes later with nothing else intervening, they are all healed, I can logically and reasonably conclude that the correlation between 10 ill and then no longer ill after being given the medicine is a sound conclusion that the medicine worked. Perhaps it does not prove absolute causality, but it is still a reasonable conclusion of what caused the healing without having to examine the specifics of what took place in their bodies. Also a classic example: High Blood Pressure and Heart Disease: The correlation between high blood pressure and increased risk of heart disease is supported by extensive clinical data, showing a direct causal relationship. Once again, perhaps not an absolute causation that can be proven, but it is still reasonable to conclude a direct causal link.
As for Mr. Olson, I also disagree as evidenced by his frequently violating his own rules of etiquette in order to condescendingly mock many commenters instead of respectfully engaging and arguing with what they wrote if he is so inclined…but this also includes engaging what they actually write in full context; not mischaracterizing it into short straw man bites. As these are examples of the ad hominem fallacy, such are by their nature unfair, and being busy or not having time to more appropriately engage is no excuse to be unfair via mockery punctuated by the condescending “do better” that frequents many of his comments.
“… violating his own rules of etiquette …”
Nope. You keep wading in here and misrepresenting matters, going on and on and on about how you’ve been wronged. It’s tiring and it’s ridiculous.
Yes, the wasteland is undeniable. And yet, theologically and ecclesially, “[d]evolution” is one thing, while growth in tree rings is another. And, about sedevacantism, a great pre-Vatican II theologian said it best (as about operas): “It ain’t over till the fat lady sings!”
“You would think too that instead of worrying about the “silliness” of sedevacantists Chapp might reflect on why the Church remains such a wasteland despite some 34 years of Communio Popes governing things.”
It is not difficult for even brilliant thinkers and popes to lose sight of intentions pridefully conceived yet tolerated in the work of theologians admired or tolerated through consensus, even theologians advancing a process theology that subordinates God.
Of all the commentary here and in Chapp’s essay, you describe the crisis perfectly that the Church appears as a relativist enterprise with endless meetings conveying uncertainty of doctrine in popular perception. Not to mention two popes in a row have recently said it can. Formal names do not hide the fact that a meeting is a meeting.
Persuasion is the means of authentic dialogue, which can only exist between two people, not among billions. As a slogan “dialogue” describes a Church that cannot avoid dishonoring her witness. The victims of the evil to which the Church’s submission to doctrinal doubt matter.
“You would think too that instead of worrying about the “silliness” of sedevacantists Chapp might reflect on why the Church remains such a wasteland despite some 34 years of Communio Popes governing things.”
It is not difficult for even brilliant thinkers and popes to lose sight of intentions pridefully conceived yet tolerated in the work of theologians admired or tolerated through consensus, even theologians advancing a process theology that subordinates God.
Of all the commentary here and in Chapp’s essay, you describe the crisis perfectly that the Church appears as a relativist enterprise with endless meetings implying uncertainty of doctrine in popular perception. Not to mention two popes in a row have recently said it can. Formal names do not hide the fact that a meeting is a meeting.
Persuasion is the means of authentic dialogue, which can only exist between two people, not among billions. As a slogan dialogue describes a Church that cannot avoid dishonoring her witness. The victims of the evil to which the Church’s acquiescence to doctrinal doubt matter.
Very well stated Edward.
Thank you Father. Always admire your posts.
Well articulated, Edward. Good to see another person who sees through the gaslighting efforts of theologians and various Church leaders who continue to claim an overall excellence of Vatican II and some of its “progeny” that simply does not exist. Honesty requires seriously acknowledging good aspects of the council, but it also requires seriously acknowledging the flaws and errors in the council itself and its aftermath instead of claiming that any flaw or error is just a matter of misinterpretation.
They may be miniscule, but their internet presence is out of all proportion to their actual numbers. And they are the reason Traditionis Custodes was promulgated.
So they are responsible for stalling out Benedict’s liturgical restoration.
Thanks for mentioning the scientistic fraud Teilhard de Chardin whose fantastic “Laws” and theories are a septic infection in our suffering Church even while its victims are unaware. Wolfgang Smith (RIP, MIT Math prof) utterly disemboweled the gross heresy of Teilhard in his revised book “Theistic Evolution” = a must read for any Catholic stunned by the chaotic cognitive dissonance in the Vatican. All the pro homo, pro Marxist, false scientism and evolutionary dogmatism will come to light.
Well over 35 years ago, I recall reading an interview with de Lubac in which he stated unequivocally that the Church he saw at the time of the interview was not the Church envisioned at the Second Vatican Council. If I remember correctly, he said that though he’d considered Garrigou-Legrange as part of the “ancien regime,” he’d started praying for his intercession. So do I! (And Anscar Vonier’s intercession would also be welcome.)
Amen. Vonier’s “A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist” is a gem. Archive has his work online. https://archive.org/details/collectedworksof0002voni/page/n9/mode/2up
“Traditional Catholic” is a sociological category, not an ecclesial one. It is a distinction without a difference. To be Catholic is, of course, to be traditional by definition. So what does this phrase REALLY mean? It means: we are not like “those people,” meaning either outright modernists who pretend to be Catholic, or those who do not attend the so-called Latin Mass and don’t see themselves as anything but just ordinary Catholics. In short, there is no such thing as a traditional Catholic, only a Catholic. Those who self identity as such and insist that they are the only true Catholics, such as Peter Kwasniewski, are inner circle schismatic cultists, not Catholics.
In general, gnosticism is the attitude that leads one to believe he possesses an irrefutable insight into the truth of matters of great importance, whether natural or supernatural. It is irrefutable, because legitimate authority, external evidence, or basic logic can not affect one’s certainty in the judgment of its truth. The strength and sincerity of one’s conviction is the only magisterium. Worst of all, the gnostic feels in his heart of hearts, though he may not recognize it, that he somehow deserves to know what he knows. Gnosticism is the temptation of the modern world, afflicting everyone, even traditionalists who define themselves as anti-modern.
Allow me now to try to describe precisely what I mean by gnostic traditionalism. As I see it, it is the unwillingness or incapacity to take a step back, to adopt a Socratic stance toward one’s commitment and allegiance to the traditionalist narrative and critique of the post-conciliar Church, which may be a true narrative and accurate critique, but, nevertheless, is a narrative and critique that doesn’t come to us from the Magisterium, and so does not require submission by divine Faith. Having some Socratic distance from it is not a sin, but the gnostic traditionalist thinks it is. Traditionalist narratives, explanations, criticisms, attitudes, etc. are founded on nothing more certain than fallible judgments on concrete historical and ecclesial particulars. If you combine this kind of unwillingness and incapacity to take a step back, this absolutely unyielding stance regarding one’s traditionalist allegiance, as opposed to simply having the ordinary allegiance to the Catholic Church, with an a priori and intractable unwillingness to attend even just an occasional well-celebrated, reverent Novus Ordo (for, attendance at a Novus Ordo, regardless of the quality of its celebration, constitutes “spiritual contamination,” à la Donatism), you have the recipe for the spiritual poison of gnostic traditionalism.
Of course, one can exclusively attend the Tridentine Mass, but only because it is an approved option that one chooses in obedience. It is not the case, as the gnostic traditionalist thinks, that those with different approved commitments are somehow less Catholic, or that one’s commitment to the traditional Mass doesn’t depend entirely on the Church’s pleasure to permit and endorse such a commitment, but merely on one’s own gnostic insight that this is what “true” Catholics do. Such an attitude reflects Donatism, not Catholicism, and in today’s ecclesial situation, it can be called gnosticism.
The essential mentality of the gnostic traditionalist attitude is “No salvation outside of us.” Now, one asks, has any bona-fide traditionalist group, outside of the 1958 sedevacantists, ever claimed such a thing? Of course, true heretics and schismatics rarely make explicit such damning heretical and schismatic confessions. Perhaps the most fanatical and prideful of them do, but the average heretic and schismatic tends to hold such sentiments in. However, heresies and an absence of charity are often hidden implicitly in words and actions, and a good theological dialectician can draw them out. Is there not some evidence of a no-salvation-outside-of-us mentality in the various independent traditionalist movements and personages? And even within the approved (FSSP) traditionalist milieu? For example, if one does not happen to buy a certain historical, political, or ecclesial narrative wholesale — one that is, at best, debatable, and certainly not de fide! — then, well, one is not a real Catholic, even if he happens to attend the Tridentine Mass, defend the social reign of Christ the King, and show forth abundant fruits of holiness in his life. Again, SSPXers say that anyone who attends non SSPX Masses is duped, a useful idiot of the modernists, and just not authentically Catholic. I have witnessed FSSP Catholics make their intense moral disapproval known if you attend a Novus Ordo, no matter how reverent and orthodox it may be, and no matter the legitimacy of one’s reasons. They may not declare the Novus Ordo invalid, but their practice speaks louder than their words.
More here: https://childrenbewareofidols.substack.com/p/why-traditional-catholic-is-a-lie
Was Cardinal Ottaviani a gnostic because he denounced the Novus Ordo’s deficiencies in expressing Catholic Doctrine? Was he merely referring to a badly celebrated Novus Ordo? Did Archbishop Lefebvre say that all who attended the Novus Ordo were not authentically Catholic, or did he say instead, that attendees were placing themselves in an environment that diminished unequivocally Catholic understandings of what was going on in the Mass, and that long term attendance was negative?
Constance is Catholicism.
Unpredictable is Modernism.
The Developing View of the Council
From Eucharistic Revival to a Synodal Church:
In the beginning of the first document promulgated by the Second Vatican Council on Dec. 4, 1963, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, we read:
[For the liturgy, “through which the work of our redemption is accomplished,” (1) most of all in the divine sacrifice of the eucharist, is the outstanding means whereby the faithful may express in their lives, and manifest to others, the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church.]
At the end of the last document promulgated by the Council on Dec. 7, 1965, The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, we read:
[Christians cannot yearn for anything more ardently than to serve the men of the modern world with mounting generosity and success. Therefore, by holding faithfully to the Gospel and benefiting from its resources, by joining with every man who loves and practices justice, Christians have shouldered a gigantic task for fulfillment in this world, a task concerning which they must give a reckoning to Him who will judge every man on the last of days.]
The Council seems to suggest that we take seriously the scripture passages:
[Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way. First be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.] Matthew 5:23
[Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.] John 4:21
[Let me have no more of your strumming on harps. But let justice flow like water, and integrity like an unfailing stream.] Amos 5:23-24
Granted that the Liturgy and spirituality are important. However, it is about time that we emphasize a Synodal Church and “a preferential option for the poor” over Liturgy and a “Eucharistic Revival”. Is this “Modernism”?
What is a “Synodal Church”? And how is it different from the Mystical Body of Christ founded 2000 years ago? Asking for a lot of Catholics.
A “Synodal Church” is Congregationalism installed as a substitute for the more balanced “hierarchical communion” (Lumen Gentium) of the Eucharistic Church.
The challenge is for a more grounded and united “ecclesial assembly” or Communio (Benedict’s terms) among laity and clergy BECAUSE OF the sacramental life, and the distinct and intact Apostolic Succession tracing back to the incarnate Jesus Christ–not with diocesan bishops reduced “primarily as facilitators” (the synodal guidebook: Vademecum).
Congratulations. Someone has finally defined Synodality. Catholic Congregationalism.
Peter D. Beaulieu, Religious – that is, men and women belonging by vows to a religious congregation – have been practicing synodality for 1500 years and it is not any form of congregationalism. Please read chapter 3 of the Rule of St. Benedict.
Canon law defines the Chapter of a religious institute as the governing body of that institute. That is the organ of synodality in a religious institute. If you wish to watch it in action, please watch the movie “Of Gods and Men”. It gives a very accurate depiction of synodality in action.
I agree that synodality is more easily practiced with a small community, but the large congregations have managed it for hundreds of years so it is possible with larger groups.
Of course, synodality is “messy” because you get different opinions from different people. If you want a “neat” and “well organized” religious group, then a top-down form of authoritarianism is much more effective. It also is invariably far more worldly for it leaves little or no room for the action of the Holy Spirit.
You can find more of my thoughts on this subject here: https://wherepeteris.com/is-synodality-really-necessary-for-unity/
I agree. It is rant substituted for reason.
However, it is about time that we emphasize a Synodal Church and “a preferential option for the poor” over Liturgy and a “Eucharistic Revival”. Is this “Modernism”?
Put thus, it is almost Modernism, or (as with the Modernists) an identification of the Zeitgeist with the Heilig Geist.
One concern with this article is that Mr. Chapp does not name specifically who he is talking about. Is he referring to Kennedy Hall’s analysis St. Pius X’s Pascendi in What Happened to Catholicism? If so, he could ground his argument in what Hall actually maintained with respect to modernism and the New Theology. Instead of amorphous attacks on anti-modernists, Chapp could provide direct citations to more accurately address his opponents.
I do not follow Kennedy Hall and so my article is in no way a response to him. My article is a response, as I stated, to the many social media posts I have seen over the years from traditionalists. And before anyone rushes off to say that this is purely subjective and that I am attacking a “straw man”, just look at many of the comments in this combox thread for corroborating evidence of my claim.
I think it might be more fruitful, if one wants to address traditionalist grievances, to engage with the critique of men like Cardinal Ottaviani, Archbishop Lefebvre or Bishop Schneider.
Given I have no more than a worm’s eye view of the Church the Church is divided between the classic Thomists intending to conform the world to God and the modernist hell-bent on conforming God to the world.
Thank you for this. One thing I remain unable to understand is why Donald J Keefe, S.J. and his magisterial Covenant Theology continue to be ignored. De Lubac, von Balthasar, yes, but where is Keefe?
Thank you for mentioning Keefe! His Covenant theology is very good. Unfortunately, I think not many people read him because his writing is extremely dense and in places very hard to follow.
Thanks Mortain:
The penetrating insights in your comment regarding yet another gaslighting attempt by L. Chapp to defend and praise Vatican II despite the obvious problems with many aspects of the council and the aftermath arising directly from it is a masterclass of demonstrating how objective reality demolishes a disingenuous fantasy and the propaganda that supports it.
Whenever I come across yet another article of L. Chapp in defense of the fantasy council of his own making, I am reminded of the old quip by Groucho Marx: ‘Who are you gonna believe; me or your own eyes?’ Like you and others grounded in seeing things as they were and are, our own eyes are believed in rejecting the false assertions and narratives of one who seeks to blind us.
“…gaslighting attempt … disingenuous fantasy … the propaganda … the fantasy council …”
This is not how a Thomist (or reasonable Catholic in general) “argues”. This is just infantile, blustering nonsense. Do better.
In praising the most excellent insights of Mortain regarding the serious misrepresentations made by Chapp in his ongoing gaslighting efforts to defend the indefensible and mislead many good people in the process, I accurately pointed out the wisdom of Mortain in presenting historical facts against a disingenuous fantasy that purposely ignores such facts over and over and over again.
What does Catholic morality say about purposely misconstruing what a person writes and presenting it differently in order to levy an unjust criticism toward that person? I did not write nor did I imply a “fantasy council.” This is your own fantasy, wrongly assuming what is not present to maliciously misrepresent in a public forum what I clearly wrote so you could launch your dishonest diatribe in the manner of a bully. Try to man up, will you?
Also do better by being more honest, and if you do not understand what certain statements mean, do not criticize them in ignorance by condescendingly mocking them. What I wrote clearly and succinctly supports what Mortain wrote in his penetrating comments that expose something that should be exposed. I and Mortain see through L. Chapp in his make believe approach to Vatican II. You cannot. That is your problem; not ours, so obtusely lashing out as you did is just reprehensible. Absolutely Do Better…if you can.
If my surmising is correct, you will not publish these comments that rightly put egg all over your face that you brought on yourself. Such is the way of the bully when confronted with any harsh truth too difficult to handle (in this case, getting rightly punched back in the nose in response to your below the belt punches). Of course, you will defend not including these comments because you will claim they violate some etiquette rules that you proudly violated against me and also violate against others whenever you feel like bullying them in your own comments that do not come close to being sincere and beneficial examples of fraternal correction.
Right. You’ve not helped your case. Quite the contrary. “Bullying”? Good grief. Passive-aggressive much?
Wrong. You have no case. My response to you for jumping in on my supportive comments in appreciation of the wisdom in Mortain’s comments are rightly aggressive (no passivity at all; another error on your part) in response to your maliciously false and condescending bullying approach that is dishonest.
Good grief indeed. And I note not one word of apology in purposely mischaracterizing what I originally wrote, especially regarding a so-called “fantasy council” that I did not write, yet you bear false witness against me by claiming I did write such hogwash.
Once more I ask: What does Catholic morality say about purposely misconstruing what a person writes and presenting it differently in order to levy an unjust criticism toward that person? Accuse me of this or that all you want instead of engaging more substantively. The reality here is that your action in purposely misrepresenting what I wrote is flat out sinful, for which I forgive you, but I do recommend you add it to your next confession…unless you believe making such a false assertion is acceptabe per Catholic morality.
Credit to you for posting my previous comment. Very surprising. Do it one more time with this comment and respond more accurately without any snark and I’ll happily move on. I won’t hold my breath that you will so engage, but I will remain hopeful that you do the right thing.
Having you man up and surprise one more time by publishing my spot on second rebuttal to your repeated false declarations appears to be too much for you to do, and so the truth continues to suffer publicly via your dictate.
Nevertheless, what I wrote to Mortain is spot on despite your efforts to undermine it via deliberate dishonesty and juvenile mockery. And I gave you a second chance to simply do the right thing, but instead, you double down on the condescension filled with falsehoods. So be it.
As noted by our editor, John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote on this topic. The work is titled “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.” Project Gutenberg has made available online, free of charge, the sixth edition of this work as published by Notre Dame University Press. The posting is legal because the edition is now in the public domain:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/35110/35110-h/35110-h.htm
As Pope Pius wrote in Humani Generis, it’s not enough to simply say one is returning to patristic and biblical sources. The Garrigou La Grange and Pius XII’s criticisms of “ressourcement” and nouvelle theologie were serious – De Lubac himself was sufficiently stung by them to make him refer to La Grange as a narrow minded maniac (in a letter to a dying Blondel advising him to ignore La Grange’s justified criticisms of Blondel’s ideas).
I think we ought to get beyond just asserting that we are returning to sources, and take Thomistic critiques seriously. For his views against the concept of pure nature and on the issue of the gratuity of the supernatural etc., De Lubac received the censure of contemporary Thomism. It’s hardly sufficient to label that Thomism as stale and narrow; its criticisms need to be engaged properly.
If Fr de Lubac was not a modernist, why did Pius XII in “Humani Generis” expressly condemn his novel theological assertions on the supernatural order?*
*Gethsemani, Cardinal Joseph Siri
Humani Generis was published in 1950, and the reference is to deLubac’s book, “Supernatural,” published in 1946 (Siri, “Gethsemani,” 1981, p. 59).
Chapp (above), then writes: “[de Lubac] was later rehabilitated by St. Pope John XXIII and played an important role at the Council and was subsequently made a cardinal by St. Pope John Paul II.” Maybe in two decades deLubac had refined his views on a subtle question? Or, his early views simply became better understood? Or both?
The question–beyond my reach–is the subtle interplay of nature and grace, and the difference between our natural aspiration toward the infinite, and the distinctly Infinite itself–that finite Man is created to aspire to the Infinite, but that he cannot achieve God except by a gratuitous gift. The chicken-and-egg conundrum in theological garb, and yet of momentous importance….Luther assigned all to grace, while Rousseau insisted on the perfectible natural savage with no need for grace.
https://charismata.fr/le-cardinal-jean-danielou-et-son-frere-alain-homosexuel/
De Lubac doubled down on his encyclically condemned ideas in his subsequent book “mysteries of the supernatural.”*
He was indeed important at the revolutionary council which dynamited the Catholic Church.
His friend Jean Danielou celebrated annual masses in Paris for the practising sodomites of the City. Link above.
So how did we end up where we are?
The heresy of Modernism, snaking its way via la nouvelle theologie…
*Gethsemani, Cardinal Siri.
I love Ratzinger Peter, but the facts of the matter remain that La Nouvelle Theologie was the heresy of modernism in disguise?
You need to accurately state what the linked article says:
I’ve never seen any evidence at all that Danielou excused the sins of his brother; rather, he was very aware of them and it distressed him.
More on the real Cardinal Daniélou, this comment by a Rev. Gino Dalpiaz on a 2012 article about Daniélou:
“The eminent Italian Vaticanist, Sandro Magister, wrote a disturbing article in your June-July issue [“Inside the Vatican,” 2012] on the evil machinations of the Jesuit Order against their confrere, Cardinal Jean Daniélou (“The Quarantine Has Ended”). For years I and millions of Catholics and non-Catholics worldwide were convinced this brilliant Jesuit theologian had had a heart attack and died in the house of a prostitute whom he was supposedly frequenting. Instead, now—after forty years—we finally know the truth the Jesuits have known for 40 years and never told the world: He was on an errand of mercy.
“Cardinal Daniélou had gone to bring her money to pay for a lawyer capable of getting her husband out of prison. ‘The Jesuits conducted exhaustive investigations to discover the truth,’ Magister writes, ‘They ascertained his innocence. But they also shrouded the case in silence that did not dispel the suspicions.
“I think the Jesuits are now paying for their nefariousness. The are no longer the revered religious order they were for 500 years. They are a shadow of their former greatness. I say this with great personal pain and regret because, for six years of philosophy and theology, I received a superb education from the Jesuits at the Gregorian University in Rome. Shame on the Jesuits for their hostility to this holy man, this cardinal of Holy Mother Church, this brother who had the John-the-Baptist courage to tell his brothers the truth about themselves. I hope that some day the Church will canonize this holy man who spoke truth to power” (Rev. Gino Dalpiaz, C.S., Santa Maria Addolorata Church, Chicago, Illinois, USA, “Inside the Vatican,” August/September 2012).
De Lubac was never mentioned by name in the encyclical although most scholars agree that de Lubac was the target. What was condemned were several theological propositions. However, de Lubac always denied that the condemned concepts were in fact views which he held. Indeed, many scholars on both sides of the aisle agree that the thought of de Lubac is far more nuanced than the concepts which were condemned. The condemnations were a bit superficial in the sense that they were put forward in very simplistic terms without taking into consideration the many, many nuances and subtleties of the various theological views under debate. This is precisely why de Lubac was eventually rehabilitated by several later popes who found much in his theology that was deeply useful and true. Therefore, the condemnations of Pius XII, even if they were true representations of the thought of de Lubac, were later reversed by later popes, and implicitly, by the ecumenical Council itself. Does this mean we have to accept all that de Lubac held? Absolutely not! Even some of his closest associates disagreed with him on some things. For example, he did promote the theology of Teilhard, but this was rejected by Balthasar and others, who disliked the theology of Teilhard immensely. Some observers have noted that most likely de Lubac, having suffered unjustly under the Holy Office, simply had a tender spot in his soul for a fellow Jesuit who had run afoul of the authorities. I do not know if this is true, but it makes a bit of sense. The human factor and the politics of these things are often overlooked.
But as for condemnations… it must be remembered that Thomas Aquinas was condemned in 1277 in the strongest of terms by the Bishop of Paris. And this condemnation was accepted with approval by many other bishops at that time. In fact, his use of Aristotle was considered at the time to be highly controversial and even heretical by many who saw a dangerous secularity in the philosophy of Aristotle as opposed to Plato. The faculty at the university of Paris condemned Aquinas for this reason. Of course, the Bishop of Paris was not the Pope so the two condemnations (Aquinas and de Lubac) are not magisterially equal. But hopefully you can still get the point I am making. Aquinas was later rehabiliated and even canonized and his innovative use of Aristotle hailed as a huge intellectual breakthrough. And de Lubac, though not on that level of genius, was also rehabilitated. The Bishop of Paris in 1277 was an Augustinian theologically and therefore a bit of a platonist. His condemnations were therefore tainted with deep misunderstandings and prejudices against Aquinas simply because he used Aristotle. Likewise, the popes who came after Pius XII all realized that Pius had been unduly influenced by the anti-Lubacian efforts of Lagrange and did not give de Lubac enough credit for the deep theological nuances of his approach. And later popes further realized that even if de Lubac’s theology of grace is ultimately deficient in some ways, that it is a deficit that certainly did not merit official magisterial sanction. It was instead a legitimate difference of theological opinion of the kind that the Church should allow to play out.
But most certainly, de Lubac was not a Modernist, which was the main point of my article. If you think otherwise I would recommend you read his book “The Drama of Atheist Humanism” for very strong evidence of how much he opposed religious relativism, runaway subjectivism, and the accomodationism of liberal christianity. His works on retrieving a proper medieval approach to biblical exegesis are also hardly Modernist and can be seen instead as his attempt to counteract the anti-supernatural biases of much of modern historical critical exegesis of the Bible.
Do you suggest an equivalence between condemnation by a Bishop of Paris and condemnation by a Bishop of Rome?
No. Which I clearly stated in the article which you apparently missed. I stated very explicitly that the two condemnations were not commensurate. Furthermore, it is not 100% certain that de Lubac was the target. There is some evidence that he wasn’t. Be that as it may, certain propositions were condemned. But several later popes clearly favored de Lubac. So you would be hard pressed, based solely on the criterion of papal authority, to accuse de Lubac of being a “Modernist condemned by the magisterium as such”.
No, I did not miss you saying that one and another bishop condemning one and another theologian was ‘not the point.’ One could just as easily have offered a universal truth such as, “Fallen men often attack and condemn what they do not like or cannot understand.” An equivalence, though gainsaid, was suggested, alluding to error by those condemned.
Curious, isn’t it, that everything old is new again? As non-thinkers tried and failed to suppress Aquinas’ theology during his lifetime, they continue to this day.
Good Christian folk do well to consider what effect a suppression of Aquinas’ metaphysics, for example, on unity of form would have wrought on Christian dogma. See, for instance: http://www.dominicanajournal.org/wp-content/files/old-journal-archive/vol27/no2/dominicanav27n2condemnationstthomas.pdf
“The main doctrine aimed at by the opponents of St. Thomas was
his doctrine on the unity of forms. Let us see, then, some of the
effects of the denial of Thomas’ doctrine….To destroy thus the doctrine of potency and act is to destroy “the unshakable foundations of all Metaphysics,”… and to destroy the Thomistic doctrines in Theology of
Grace, of the Humanity of Christ, etc.
We see, then, the purpose of the condemnation.”
Still no sign here of engagement with La Grange’s critique of de Lubac. Nor did Popes John Paul II or Benedict do so properly.They just gave their mate de Lubac a slap on the back and told everyone else to move on. Won’t work. The Society of St. Pius X, for example, clearly places de Lubac right smack in the middle of the series of equivocations of Catholic magisterium that were integral to Vatican II’s pastoral resolutions. Traditionalists will never let the Church move on until Pope Pius XII and La Grange’s critique is taken seriously.
No, I did not miss you saying that one and another bishop condemning one and another theologian was ‘not the point.’ What, then, was the point?
One could just as easily have offered a universal truth such as, “Fallen men often attack and condemn what they do not like or cannot understand.” What was the point? An equivalence, though gainsaid, was suggested, alluding to error by those condemned. I have not accused deLubac; you ‘commensurated’ his work with Aquinas’.
Curious, isn’t it, that everything old is new again? As non-thinkers tried and failed to suppress Aquinas’ theology during his lifetime, they continue to this day.
Good Christian folk do well to consider what effect a suppression of Aquinas’ metaphysics, for example, on unity of form would have wrought on Christian dogma. See, for instance: http://www.dominicanajournal.org/wp-content/files/old-journal-archive/vol27/no2/dominicanav27n2condemnationstthomas.pdf
“The main doctrine aimed at by the opponents of St. Thomas was
his doctrine on the unity of forms. Let us see, then, some of the
effects of the denial of Thomas’ doctrine….To destroy thus the doctrine of potency and act is to destroy “the unshakable foundations of all Metaphysics,”… and to destroy the Thomistic doctrines in Theology of
Grace, of the Humanity of Christ, etc.
We see, then, the purpose of the condemnation.”
‘ The anti-modernist forces had committed the Church to a scorched-earth rejection of all things intellectually modern, and many fine theologians found themselves under deep suspicion from Rome. ’ – Chapp
Many things can be offered on the “new People of God” whether through rose coloured glasses or through faith or through slapdash. Our RC hierarchy should take due care as 1. this is on them and 2. they are drawing out their fates convergent or divergent deciding on these things.
An attack on the Church and the faith was fomenting from before VATICAN II. “What happened after VATICAN II” is not the result of the Council, it is the result of the prior causes arising from the plan of assault long accumulating. The attack has spiritual and human aspects with a historical tracing some of it veiled.
The plan also is of spiritual and human nature and it has a way of adapting as new movements join up and collaborate: on this account I am making, that for ill not in goodwill.
The children at Fatima were shown an image of this – “as in a mirror” indicating more than one visage: the visage of the temptation afflicting every Catholic and non-Catholic “in his breast”; the visage of actual attack; the visage of attrition over time on the one side being deliberate attrition and on the other side deterioration coming from complaisance, negligence, worldly pursuit/compromise and such; the visage of notional attack as lesson about obedience in the face of attack or obedience that would be bringing forth a promised Divine Providence.
Like the reference from Paul, 1 Cor. 13:8-13, seeing yourself in the mirror “imperfectly” yet with that sure hope and then again like the reference in James 1:12-24, going away from it and forgetting.
I say obedience but I might say certainty and certainty in obedience, all with equal force. The apparitions at Fatima entail an intentional focus and emphasis on these, to convey the absolute quality in the demand being made for joining atonement. Please do not think me so inspired, these are words shared with by a monk many years ago.
VATICAN II does NOT offer anyone RELIEF from the responsibilities that earlier fathers and theologians bore and took on very seriously. Nor relief from scathing that fell on them! This minor essay I have posted now isn’t meant to lose sight of the scorched-earth rejection mentioned by Chapp. Simultaneously, we can be reminded thereby of the need for sharpness and mercy growing to the sinews and the bones, like that, if you will.
Some further remarks by Chapp are here –
https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/what-does-vatican-ii-mean-by-the-people-of-god
Remarkably lucid and fair-minded summary and analysis.
We can define modernism in both benign and more concerning terms. Modernism in theology is the attempt to communicate the faith using academic tools of contemporary scholarship. Thus theology is read through the lens of modern philosophy or a modern hermeneutic that is currently in vogue or accepted in a university academic department. A more concerning facet of “modernism” is the tendency to state that what the Church believes, historically, about serious doctrinal matters is wrong because new scholarship reveals what was understood to be true “true” is no longer “true.” The concern about modernism is not that our understanding of the faith is presented to each generation anew, but that a contemporary generation of scholars chooses to present core, long-held, doctrinal beliefs as no longer valid when applying a modernist hermeneutic. The danger in such an approach is that “everything” held as high doctrine becomes subject to revision and attack.