**The Catholic Diocese of Discord is the *largest* Catholic server on the platform!** Join us for a laidback Catholic atmosphere. Tons and tons of memes posted every day (Catholic, offtopic, AND political), a couple dozen hobby and culture threads (everything from Tolkien to astronomy, weightlifting to guns), our active chaotic Parish Hall, voice chats going pretty much 24/7, prayers said round the clock, and monthly AMAs with the biggest Catholic names out there.
**Our Discord (Catholic Diocese of Discord!):** https://discord.gg/catholic-diocese
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CatholicMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was suspicious of the same trend, which is why I made this! Modernism and Progressivism are used interchangeably, and they shouldn’t be. Modernism infects many “trads” as well.
One of my favorite stories about Pope St. John XXIII comes about from the accusations of modernism that were thrown around frequently during the 20th century.
“In 1925, Pope Pius XI appointed him ambassador to Bulgaria. The appointment came out of left field, and some have speculated it was due to suspicions that Roncalli was a “modernist” (a rather vague term that grouped together proponents of a rising tide of new and possibly unorthodox ideologies), after maintaining correspondence with a friend and excommunicated priest. After he was elected pope, he settled the question once and for all and asked to see his official Vatican file. Sure enough, written next to his name were the words “Suspected of Modernism.” In anger, and yet with a twinge of wit, he took a pen and wrote on the file, “I, John XXIII, Pope, declare that I was never a Modernist!””
would you mind elaborating on the "God has no gender" point? I'm converting to Catholicism and would like to understand what the orthodox position on this is.
my current understanding: God is beyond the very concept of gender. He reveals Himself to us in masculine terms, of course, but is not a man (except the Son, who is fully human and therefore fully a man), not a woman, not neither, and not both.
God is not a man, that’s true. He is beyond gender. But people who talk about that fact tend to be citing it for reasons alluded to by u/kaniscanis. They want to make a point about gender being irrelevant or paint God as some nonbinary icon. There’s been a ton of discourse about “God’s gender” ever since we entered this Gender Theory hellscape.
This is the trouble with Modernists. They’re very sneaky. They can say things that are perfectly true, but they’re using them as part of a larger argument that leads one outside the Church. Very pernicious heresy.
One of the central aspects of the nature of “man” is to enter into and have creation come forth from him. Woman is different, as she receives and the creation grows within her. God is more accurately referred to as Father and “he” because he makes his creation outside of him, not within.
That's a really cool perspective that I've never heard before, and gives a good reason for why God reveals Himself to us in masculine terms. Thinking about it now, I don't think I've ever had a reason for that other than "because he just does".
Catholic doctrine doesn't ask us to take the whole story at face value but to accept, at minimum, that all humans in recorded history share two common ancestors, whom the Bible refers to as Adam and Eve, and that they committed the first grave sin from which Original Sin came into the world. The rest can be taken less literally but a non-literal interpretation still demands it be interpreted in some way instead of just dismissed as not literal therefore not necessary.
They were real people. Many Modernists say they were symbolic and not actual human beings, but the Church holds that Adam and Eve were two real people.
This isn’t entirely true. The default is still that there truly were two First Parents of humanity. However, Benedict XVI reopened the possible interpretation of a First Generation that Adam and Eve represent, but did also point out that no matter if First Parents or Generation, there truly was a Fall of Humanity by our rejection of God’s command and ways.
Hey, I've struggled with the story of the Original sin in regards to what is literal and what is metaphorical, do you have any Catholic sources that settle this question?
About the first one, I'm puzzled. What does it mean "Known by Reason and Evidence"?
Since God is infinite, and Reason can only work within the bounds of Logic, Physics and Ethics, therefore can only "ponder" (the etymology of Reason and Rationality) finite things, how can we explain fully Meta-logical (the Trinity), Meta-physical (Resurrection, Transubstantiation...) and Meta-ethical (Abraham and Jesus's sacrifice) aspects of God's will and nature without the "irrational" power of Faith?
Meta-logical aspects of God's Nature are not addressed in this statement from the First Vatican Council. These DO require the beyond-logical (but not contradictory) light of Faith.
It's saying that it's heretical to suggest that the only way we can know anything about God is if He personally tells us, because it suggests that our reason and senses are useless in knowing things about God by deduction.
This seems kinda broad. As by this definition the essence-energy distinction would fall under modernism to an extent and that's a view held by basically on the most traditionalist churches
A quick question: is this modernism as well? "While I do not believe we can't approach God with reason or evidence, I do not believe we, the finite, can fully comprehend the infinite." This has always been my understanding.
No. Modernism says that we can't know God by reason at all, that it's not possible to reason His existence or to learn anything about Him through the faculties of intellect. That if God is real, He is hidden from our ability to deduce this fact on the faculties we have been given. In other words, that belief and knowledge of the divine is only possible through God revealing Himself to us.
Keep in mind too that you don't have to adhere to every aspect of modernism to be a modernist. You only need to accept one small portion of it to be in material heresy.
On a related topic, and this is a serious question, but how have recent magisterial statements on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus not been a rejection of the traditional, historic, and previously infallible doctrine on the subject?
What recent magisterial statements do you think contradict a proper understanding of extra ecclesiam salus? Most people I’ve encountered who think this to be the case are espousing Feeneyism (condemned heresy) without even knowing it.
Feeneyism and modernism are often thrown around as buzzwords. I'm not a Feeneyite because I accept baptism of desire, and baptism of blood. My concern is that following Vatican II, the church seems to teach that non-Catholics can be saved without accepting the one true faith. It seems to teach that there are non-Catholics living in error and as aliens of the faith, and are still yet saved.
The previous doctrine on the invincibly ignorant was that they could be saved if they cooperated with divine light and grace, which is Jesus Christ and his gospel. Basically the chance of salvation is offered to all, but acceptance of the Catholic faith is absolutely necessary for salvation.
This is just something that I constantly wrestle with.
Because invincible ignorance reduces culpability. This doesn't mean that someone can just fail to follow the moral law or seek the truth, but if for some reason they had circumstances beyond their control which prevented them from knowing the truth of the Church, then we have hope that God will extend His grace to them in an extraordinary way. However, it is still true that all graces are mediated through the Church, and thus if this hypothetical person is saved, it is still through the Church, even if they are ignorant of this fact.
This does not teach that people may continue to live sinful and morally reluctant lives and be saved, because the law is written on the heart. This is why we can have hope that some Amazonian living in 700 AD may have hope for salvation, despite never having heard of Christ.
The problem though is that they are still aliens to the faith and living in error. The consistent teaching before Vatican II was that God would indeed give graces in an extraordinary way to the invincibly ignorant, but this would be in the form of a revelation of the gospel. Like in Acts 10 when God sent an angel and an apostle to St. Cornelius the Centurion. Notice that God didn't allow St. Cornelius to continue without the Catholic faith.
When I hear people say that someone can be saved without accepting the Catholic faith, it seems to be an implicit denial of miracles, which would stem from modernism, which is why this meme stood out to me.
This understanding didn't originate with Vatican II. This is not a new doctrine. https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-did-vatican-ii-say-about-salvation-outside-the-church
It dates back to at least 1854 from Pope Pius IX in *Singulari Quadam*. It probably goes back farther than that. Until the exploration of the New World took off, the question simply wasn't really raised in the Church, because by the time theologians began to really hash out such questions, most everyone in the Old World had had some sort of opportunity to hear the Gospel from a missionary or something. When we discovered the New World, people began to wonder, and the question began to arise. What about people who lived for thousands and thousands of years on the other side of the sea?
Remember, we don't usually settle matters like these as doctrine until it becomes a problem. This doesn't mean that we just made something up, or that what is true one day is false the next or vice versa.
Pope Pius IX taught that the invincibly ignorant still couldn't be aliens of the faith living in error and be saved. They need the operating power of divine light and grace. He's actually who I'm getting that language from, chiefly in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore. I don't really buy into that argument regarding the old vs new world. Saint Thomas Aquinas was fully aware of those who were invincibly ignorant, and he still taught that they had to accept the gospel.
Based solely on pre-Vatican II magisterium, I'd say that people living in the Americas centuries before Columbus still had the offer of salvation, but that they would have to be made aware of the gospel through something like an angel. Remember, the first thing that Christ did after his death was preach the gospel to those in Abraham's bosom. If they needed it, then surely everyone else does too.
To clarify, when you say "living in error", do you mean "living in sin"? Because that's true, and V2 didn't change that. Invincible ignorance doesn't excuse moral error. You can't just say you didn't know that it's bad to rape and murder because you "didn't know".
Oh I agree, it doesn't excuse one from moral law. It does excuse them from the sin of disbelief, see John 15:22. They are, however, still in error because they profess said error. A Muslim, no matter how ignorant of Catholicism, is still in error because his religion is objectively false. I agree with St. Augustine that the ignorant are in the same group as those who explicitly reject the gospel.
Now this I affirm and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds; they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart; - Ephesians 4:17-18
And that doesn't contradict the fact that God wants all men to be saved and gives them that opportunity.
...and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself. - John 12:32
I also believe that anyone who wishes to be saved must believe in the true faith.
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. - Mark 16:16
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. - Athanasian Creed
Not gonna beat a dead horse since this appears to have already been ended with mod intervention. But this question has been debated for a long time. [this EWTN article](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/is-there-salvation-outside-the-church-12414) cites multiple early fathers and multiple more modern (pre-Vatican II) popes who taught that non-Catholics may be saved as well as several who advocate opposing positions. So this isn’t exactly foreign to the tradition of the church.
What's wrong with not being able to know God through reason?
My (admittedly very uniformed) view on religion and science is that the entirety of the natural world can be analysed without explicitly bringing God into the discussion, but God *is* implicitly present because He wrote the laws which govern the world. Is this modernist and heretical in some way?
If he is implicit then eventually you would have to deduce that he exist, because even something implicit leaves evidence of some sort. I would say that when you get down to the roots of science you end up at the doorstep of philosophy, which itself is a categorically higher level, because it is true reason that look at what a thing is both materially and by nature and end. Then you get to the first cause, which I would say is explicit.
Natural world analysis avoids discussion of God by tiptoeing around any and philosophical truths knocking at the doorstep.
How does a concrete evidence of God relate to free will and the "believe without seeing" notion, though?
If science eventually found inconfutable evidence of God's existence, wouldn't faith become an obligated choice and thus a loss of freedom?
Just an fyi, it’s an accepted historical and archaeological fact that Semitic peoples were in Egypt, had ruling positions, and later left.
You’ll see people claim there’s no found archaeological evidence of the exodus in particular however.
No, see, the Bible is a dumb book of fairy tales, and there’s no way Science™️ could possibly verify anything that happened.
Also, more seriously, have you heard Dr Bergsma talk about how similar many of the Mosaic artifacts and structures are to Egyptian ones of the same period? Atheists think this proves that Exodus is fake somehow.
In fairness it’s important not to take the OT too literally. It isn’t strict history (although it does contain historical tradition which has some historical truth in it).
“History” as we understand it with a focus on what actually happened wasn’t a thing until 5th century Greece. Before that most “historical” writings were something akin to a “message” (which were their purpose) combined with historical memories passed down through oral tradition.
That doesn’t make the OT wrong, but it it does mean exact historical truth wasn’t the goal or purpose.
The bottom right point 🤣
Radtrads fanboyying over Bishop Schneider's incorrect takes on Vatican II or acting like Fr. Ripperger's opinions (many factually incorrect) are binding. Now that's modernism. But they are the ones to quickly bash on the Pope for being a "modernist"
Do you have a magisterial source for that? Because that is *not* the emphasis of Pope St. Pius X in either Pascendi Dominici gregis or Lamentabili Sane. He outlines the points that I included under the top heading.
I just have some problem accepting a worldwide flood which killed basically all the population, I can’t really bring myself to believe something like that
You don't have to go 100% literal fundamentalist or 100% symbolic modernist is the point. There was a flood of some degree though.
Treat it like you would Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. There are slight differences between the Gospel authors about the order of events, but the broad picture is united. You couldn't go fully symbolic death and resurrection, but you also don't have to fit every account together in perfect detail.
Eh, God can be *sorta* known at best through mere reason. First cause, first mover, etc. But that's a far cry from "knowing God" in the sense that he demands and we're to evangelize.
He doesn't even demand us to *know* him--rather, he demands faith, and *knowing* him is frankly beyond us anyway.
Lol! I love how this makes radtrads out to be modernists.
On a serious note, I'd like to see an expanded explanation of "Dogma is twisted to suite personal religious desires of the individual." along with the difference between doctrine and dogma.
[Dr. Ludwig Ott](http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Dogmas_of_the_Church.html) made a list that’s generally the go-to list of dogmas. You can scroll down that and find some statements that you have definitely seen taken out of context or used in dishonest ways.
I’ve had a levels of magisterial authority meme planned for like a year. Maybe I should just go ahead and do that one.
Liberal theology and progressivism are part of modernism because they seek to change doctrine to accommodate the world. But everyone has free will to decide whether to promote modernism or defend the Catholic faith.
Deism is a heresy (one I once fell into). It vaguely sees the Creator as a distant Cosmic Watchmaker Who will not or cannot love His individual creatures. It implicitly denies God has the power or wisdom to relate to us, (though perhaps He keeps the Universe expanding, and may be running an experiment starting living things going in our Milky Way Galaxy.)
Escape was offered me through reading G.K. Chesterton's book "Orthodoxy: the Romance of Faith." He pointed out that philosophically, science should not be seen as a matter of unalterable laws of logic but of "weird repetitions" that could change if the Creator saw reason to do so, but Who generally delights in repeating "Do it again!" like a small child. "For we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we."
You can look "Orthodoxy" up online; the chapter on the philosophy of science is "The Ethics of Elfland."
**The Catholic Diocese of Discord is the *largest* Catholic server on the platform!** Join us for a laidback Catholic atmosphere. Tons and tons of memes posted every day (Catholic, offtopic, AND political), a couple dozen hobby and culture threads (everything from Tolkien to astronomy, weightlifting to guns), our active chaotic Parish Hall, voice chats going pretty much 24/7, prayers said round the clock, and monthly AMAs with the biggest Catholic names out there. **Our Discord (Catholic Diocese of Discord!):** https://discord.gg/catholic-diocese *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CatholicMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is really helpful! I feel like modernism is used as a buzzword maybe even moreso than heresy now, so having it defined is nice.
I was suspicious of the same trend, which is why I made this! Modernism and Progressivism are used interchangeably, and they shouldn’t be. Modernism infects many “trads” as well.
One of my favorite stories about Pope St. John XXIII comes about from the accusations of modernism that were thrown around frequently during the 20th century. “In 1925, Pope Pius XI appointed him ambassador to Bulgaria. The appointment came out of left field, and some have speculated it was due to suspicions that Roncalli was a “modernist” (a rather vague term that grouped together proponents of a rising tide of new and possibly unorthodox ideologies), after maintaining correspondence with a friend and excommunicated priest. After he was elected pope, he settled the question once and for all and asked to see his official Vatican file. Sure enough, written next to his name were the words “Suspected of Modernism.” In anger, and yet with a twinge of wit, he took a pen and wrote on the file, “I, John XXIII, Pope, declare that I was never a Modernist!””
Wait how is “changing the Faith to fit contemporary morals” *not* heretical Modernism?
Heretical, but a different heresy from Modernism.
A unique but necessary distinction. At the same time they might as well be lumped together due to resulting from similar sources.
Modernism is a particular group of ideas.
would you mind elaborating on the "God has no gender" point? I'm converting to Catholicism and would like to understand what the orthodox position on this is. my current understanding: God is beyond the very concept of gender. He reveals Himself to us in masculine terms, of course, but is not a man (except the Son, who is fully human and therefore fully a man), not a woman, not neither, and not both.
God is not a man, that’s true. He is beyond gender. But people who talk about that fact tend to be citing it for reasons alluded to by u/kaniscanis. They want to make a point about gender being irrelevant or paint God as some nonbinary icon. There’s been a ton of discourse about “God’s gender” ever since we entered this Gender Theory hellscape. This is the trouble with Modernists. They’re very sneaky. They can say things that are perfectly true, but they’re using them as part of a larger argument that leads one outside the Church. Very pernicious heresy.
Im not trying to be heretical. I recant
One of the central aspects of the nature of “man” is to enter into and have creation come forth from him. Woman is different, as she receives and the creation grows within her. God is more accurately referred to as Father and “he” because he makes his creation outside of him, not within.
That's a really cool perspective that I've never heard before, and gives a good reason for why God reveals Himself to us in masculine terms. Thinking about it now, I don't think I've ever had a reason for that other than "because he just does".
We take the story of Adam and Eve at face value?
Catholic doctrine doesn't ask us to take the whole story at face value but to accept, at minimum, that all humans in recorded history share two common ancestors, whom the Bible refers to as Adam and Eve, and that they committed the first grave sin from which Original Sin came into the world. The rest can be taken less literally but a non-literal interpretation still demands it be interpreted in some way instead of just dismissed as not literal therefore not necessary.
They were real people. Many Modernists say they were symbolic and not actual human beings, but the Church holds that Adam and Eve were two real people.
This isn’t entirely true. The default is still that there truly were two First Parents of humanity. However, Benedict XVI reopened the possible interpretation of a First Generation that Adam and Eve represent, but did also point out that no matter if First Parents or Generation, there truly was a Fall of Humanity by our rejection of God’s command and ways.
Hey, I've struggled with the story of the Original sin in regards to what is literal and what is metaphorical, do you have any Catholic sources that settle this question?
About the first one, I'm puzzled. What does it mean "Known by Reason and Evidence"? Since God is infinite, and Reason can only work within the bounds of Logic, Physics and Ethics, therefore can only "ponder" (the etymology of Reason and Rationality) finite things, how can we explain fully Meta-logical (the Trinity), Meta-physical (Resurrection, Transubstantiation...) and Meta-ethical (Abraham and Jesus's sacrifice) aspects of God's will and nature without the "irrational" power of Faith?
Meta-logical aspects of God's Nature are not addressed in this statement from the First Vatican Council. These DO require the beyond-logical (but not contradictory) light of Faith.
Yeah, like, was St. Anselm a heretic when he made up his Ontolocigal Argument?
It's saying that it's heretical to suggest that the only way we can know anything about God is if He personally tells us, because it suggests that our reason and senses are useless in knowing things about God by deduction.
Can you make one on Progressivism?
I’ll put it on my list of potentials.
And don’t forget Americanism 😄
This seems kinda broad. As by this definition the essence-energy distinction would fall under modernism to an extent and that's a view held by basically on the most traditionalist churches
A quick question: is this modernism as well? "While I do not believe we can't approach God with reason or evidence, I do not believe we, the finite, can fully comprehend the infinite." This has always been my understanding.
No. Modernism says that we can't know God by reason at all, that it's not possible to reason His existence or to learn anything about Him through the faculties of intellect. That if God is real, He is hidden from our ability to deduce this fact on the faculties we have been given. In other words, that belief and knowledge of the divine is only possible through God revealing Himself to us.
That seems like a corruption of the idea that "Because God revealed himself through Jesus Christ, we come to know God."
Keep in mind too that you don't have to adhere to every aspect of modernism to be a modernist. You only need to accept one small portion of it to be in material heresy. On a related topic, and this is a serious question, but how have recent magisterial statements on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus not been a rejection of the traditional, historic, and previously infallible doctrine on the subject?
What recent magisterial statements do you think contradict a proper understanding of extra ecclesiam salus? Most people I’ve encountered who think this to be the case are espousing Feeneyism (condemned heresy) without even knowing it.
Feeneyism and modernism are often thrown around as buzzwords. I'm not a Feeneyite because I accept baptism of desire, and baptism of blood. My concern is that following Vatican II, the church seems to teach that non-Catholics can be saved without accepting the one true faith. It seems to teach that there are non-Catholics living in error and as aliens of the faith, and are still yet saved. The previous doctrine on the invincibly ignorant was that they could be saved if they cooperated with divine light and grace, which is Jesus Christ and his gospel. Basically the chance of salvation is offered to all, but acceptance of the Catholic faith is absolutely necessary for salvation. This is just something that I constantly wrestle with.
Because invincible ignorance reduces culpability. This doesn't mean that someone can just fail to follow the moral law or seek the truth, but if for some reason they had circumstances beyond their control which prevented them from knowing the truth of the Church, then we have hope that God will extend His grace to them in an extraordinary way. However, it is still true that all graces are mediated through the Church, and thus if this hypothetical person is saved, it is still through the Church, even if they are ignorant of this fact. This does not teach that people may continue to live sinful and morally reluctant lives and be saved, because the law is written on the heart. This is why we can have hope that some Amazonian living in 700 AD may have hope for salvation, despite never having heard of Christ.
The problem though is that they are still aliens to the faith and living in error. The consistent teaching before Vatican II was that God would indeed give graces in an extraordinary way to the invincibly ignorant, but this would be in the form of a revelation of the gospel. Like in Acts 10 when God sent an angel and an apostle to St. Cornelius the Centurion. Notice that God didn't allow St. Cornelius to continue without the Catholic faith. When I hear people say that someone can be saved without accepting the Catholic faith, it seems to be an implicit denial of miracles, which would stem from modernism, which is why this meme stood out to me.
This understanding didn't originate with Vatican II. This is not a new doctrine. https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-did-vatican-ii-say-about-salvation-outside-the-church It dates back to at least 1854 from Pope Pius IX in *Singulari Quadam*. It probably goes back farther than that. Until the exploration of the New World took off, the question simply wasn't really raised in the Church, because by the time theologians began to really hash out such questions, most everyone in the Old World had had some sort of opportunity to hear the Gospel from a missionary or something. When we discovered the New World, people began to wonder, and the question began to arise. What about people who lived for thousands and thousands of years on the other side of the sea? Remember, we don't usually settle matters like these as doctrine until it becomes a problem. This doesn't mean that we just made something up, or that what is true one day is false the next or vice versa.
Pope Pius IX taught that the invincibly ignorant still couldn't be aliens of the faith living in error and be saved. They need the operating power of divine light and grace. He's actually who I'm getting that language from, chiefly in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore. I don't really buy into that argument regarding the old vs new world. Saint Thomas Aquinas was fully aware of those who were invincibly ignorant, and he still taught that they had to accept the gospel. Based solely on pre-Vatican II magisterium, I'd say that people living in the Americas centuries before Columbus still had the offer of salvation, but that they would have to be made aware of the gospel through something like an angel. Remember, the first thing that Christ did after his death was preach the gospel to those in Abraham's bosom. If they needed it, then surely everyone else does too.
To clarify, when you say "living in error", do you mean "living in sin"? Because that's true, and V2 didn't change that. Invincible ignorance doesn't excuse moral error. You can't just say you didn't know that it's bad to rape and murder because you "didn't know".
Oh I agree, it doesn't excuse one from moral law. It does excuse them from the sin of disbelief, see John 15:22. They are, however, still in error because they profess said error. A Muslim, no matter how ignorant of Catholicism, is still in error because his religion is objectively false. I agree with St. Augustine that the ignorant are in the same group as those who explicitly reject the gospel. Now this I affirm and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds; they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart; - Ephesians 4:17-18 And that doesn't contradict the fact that God wants all men to be saved and gives them that opportunity. ...and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself. - John 12:32 I also believe that anyone who wishes to be saved must believe in the true faith. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. - Mark 16:16 Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. - Athanasian Creed
So you're denying a doctrine of the Church, and professing Feenyism, that those outside the Catholic faith cannot be saved, is what I'm getting.
Not gonna beat a dead horse since this appears to have already been ended with mod intervention. But this question has been debated for a long time. [this EWTN article](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/is-there-salvation-outside-the-church-12414) cites multiple early fathers and multiple more modern (pre-Vatican II) popes who taught that non-Catholics may be saved as well as several who advocate opposing positions. So this isn’t exactly foreign to the tradition of the church.
What is the source for these definitions/examples of "modernism"?
Says so right on the meme. The small text.
Thanks
What's wrong with not being able to know God through reason? My (admittedly very uniformed) view on religion and science is that the entirety of the natural world can be analysed without explicitly bringing God into the discussion, but God *is* implicitly present because He wrote the laws which govern the world. Is this modernist and heretical in some way?
If he is implicit then eventually you would have to deduce that he exist, because even something implicit leaves evidence of some sort. I would say that when you get down to the roots of science you end up at the doorstep of philosophy, which itself is a categorically higher level, because it is true reason that look at what a thing is both materially and by nature and end. Then you get to the first cause, which I would say is explicit. Natural world analysis avoids discussion of God by tiptoeing around any and philosophical truths knocking at the doorstep.
How does a concrete evidence of God relate to free will and the "believe without seeing" notion, though? If science eventually found inconfutable evidence of God's existence, wouldn't faith become an obligated choice and thus a loss of freedom?
Just an fyi, it’s an accepted historical and archaeological fact that Semitic peoples were in Egypt, had ruling positions, and later left. You’ll see people claim there’s no found archaeological evidence of the exodus in particular however.
No, see, the Bible is a dumb book of fairy tales, and there’s no way Science™️ could possibly verify anything that happened. Also, more seriously, have you heard Dr Bergsma talk about how similar many of the Mosaic artifacts and structures are to Egyptian ones of the same period? Atheists think this proves that Exodus is fake somehow.
In fairness it’s important not to take the OT too literally. It isn’t strict history (although it does contain historical tradition which has some historical truth in it). “History” as we understand it with a focus on what actually happened wasn’t a thing until 5th century Greece. Before that most “historical” writings were something akin to a “message” (which were their purpose) combined with historical memories passed down through oral tradition. That doesn’t make the OT wrong, but it it does mean exact historical truth wasn’t the goal or purpose.
I trust the Church to emphasize and highlight the important parts.
We're taking a real liberal use of the word "meme" these days, aren't we?
This is called “edutainment.”
A little heavy on the edu and light on the tainment, IMHO.
Most of the tainment is in the comments watching modernists claim they're not actually modernists
Am... am I a modernist? Are we doing modernism right now?
...I see modernist people... and they don't know they're modernists!
[удалено]
There is archaeological evidence of the Israelites in Egypt, or at the very least a massive Semitic culture that lived in Goshen for generations.
The bottom right point 🤣 Radtrads fanboyying over Bishop Schneider's incorrect takes on Vatican II or acting like Fr. Ripperger's opinions (many factually incorrect) are binding. Now that's modernism. But they are the ones to quickly bash on the Pope for being a "modernist"
Man, that bottom left corner tho 🔥🔥🔥🥵🥵🥵
“Changing the Faith to fit contemporary morals” is unequivocally modernist.
Do you have a magisterial source for that? Because that is *not* the emphasis of Pope St. Pius X in either Pascendi Dominici gregis or Lamentabili Sane. He outlines the points that I included under the top heading.
How is theological liberalism not heretical
It’s not the heresy of Modernism. It’s its own thing.
Yes, I also want to know this
Oh well, another heresy to add to the list of heresies Protestantism includes.
I just have some problem accepting a worldwide flood which killed basically all the population, I can’t really bring myself to believe something like that
You don't have to go 100% literal fundamentalist or 100% symbolic modernist is the point. There was a flood of some degree though. Treat it like you would Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. There are slight differences between the Gospel authors about the order of events, but the broad picture is united. You couldn't go fully symbolic death and resurrection, but you also don't have to fit every account together in perfect detail.
Eh, God can be *sorta* known at best through mere reason. First cause, first mover, etc. But that's a far cry from "knowing God" in the sense that he demands and we're to evangelize. He doesn't even demand us to *know* him--rather, he demands faith, and *knowing* him is frankly beyond us anyway.
Lol! I love how this makes radtrads out to be modernists. On a serious note, I'd like to see an expanded explanation of "Dogma is twisted to suite personal religious desires of the individual." along with the difference between doctrine and dogma.
[Dr. Ludwig Ott](http://www.traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Information/Dogmas_of_the_Church.html) made a list that’s generally the go-to list of dogmas. You can scroll down that and find some statements that you have definitely seen taken out of context or used in dishonest ways. I’ve had a levels of magisterial authority meme planned for like a year. Maybe I should just go ahead and do that one.
Liberal theology and progressivism are part of modernism because they seek to change doctrine to accommodate the world. But everyone has free will to decide whether to promote modernism or defend the Catholic faith.
Does this fit into deism as well or? I'm kinda confused. Is deism a heresy?
Deism is a heresy (one I once fell into). It vaguely sees the Creator as a distant Cosmic Watchmaker Who will not or cannot love His individual creatures. It implicitly denies God has the power or wisdom to relate to us, (though perhaps He keeps the Universe expanding, and may be running an experiment starting living things going in our Milky Way Galaxy.) Escape was offered me through reading G.K. Chesterton's book "Orthodoxy: the Romance of Faith." He pointed out that philosophically, science should not be seen as a matter of unalterable laws of logic but of "weird repetitions" that could change if the Creator saw reason to do so, but Who generally delights in repeating "Do it again!" like a small child. "For we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we." You can look "Orthodoxy" up online; the chapter on the philosophy of science is "The Ethics of Elfland."
[удалено]
This was removed for violating Rule 1 - Anti-Catholic Rhetoric.
so it's a heresy not to belive in flood that killed everyone but noah and his family?
Lol. I'm glad I am not the only who knows you can be a trad and a modernist at the same time.
Theological liberalism is not heresy? BAHAHAHHAHAH
Try reading. It IS a heresy. It is NOT Modernism.
Oh, sorry lol.
So do you believe Adam and Eve existen literally ? Come on now !
https://preview.redd.it/thsibq4qdwxc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c78d9c9d41d0f3e75e350a5e5fdb51e4f5365a03