Modernism

I. The external act, or profession of faith, is sometimes prescribed. This is clear: 1. From Sacred Scripture. "If thou confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God has raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart we believe unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."¹ 2. From the fact that the Church was instituted by her Author as an external, visible society of believers. But such a society carries with it that believers also profess the faith externally. 3. The majesty of God revealing requires this, for external adherence also is owed to Him. How greatly the obligation of sometimes professing the faith presses is clear, for example, from the fact that the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, on May 28, 1635, responded that "a Mohammedan who wishes, on account of danger to life, to be a hidden Christian and to remain such cannot be admitted to baptism, but must transfer himself to places where he can publicly profess the Christian religion."²

II. The external act, or profession of faith, generally obliges the faithful "whenever their silence, evasiveness, or manner of acting would carry with it an implicit denial of faith, contempt of religion, injury to God, or scandal of neighbor" (can. 1325, § 1). Specifically, it obliges:

1. By reason of the precept of faith itself:

a) When a baptized infant attains the use of reason, or an adult embraces the faith or returns to it after public departure.

b) Several times in life, as is gathered from the arguments adduced under I. Besides, a man who lives Christianly abundantly satisfies this obligation, since hundreds of times he places acts which contain a profession of faith at least in an act exercised.

c) When the honor of God as Author of faith must be defended (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 3, a. 2); this has place: 1. if someone is questioned by public authority. Hence proposition 18 was condemned by Innocent XI: "If someone is questioned by public power, I counsel that he frankly confess the faith as glorious to God and the faith; to be silent I do not condemn as sinful per se."³ But "if a prince by a general law orders the faithful to disclose themselves, by wearing a sign, or presenting themselves, or otherwise, they are not bound, since no one is bound to speak the truth unless he has been specially asked" (St. Alphonsus, II, 14, 50), that is, the obligation of professing the faith presses only when someone is summoned before the law. Make exception if civil authority questions someone about the faith contrary to the prescription of law. Nor is the case present if someone is questioned for a merely political end, for example on the occasion of a census of the people. 2. If the faith is treated contemptuously and someone can conveniently defend it, for example by refuting objections that have been brought forward (St. Alphonsus, II, 11). 3. If, considering the circumstances, omission of profession would be taken for denial of the faith, as if, when several persons have been questioned about the faith and others are professing it, you were silent (St. Alphonsus, II, 14, 40); likewise if, when you were questioned about the faith, another, while you were silent, answered for you that you were not a Catholic. I said considering the circumstances, because per se there is no obligation of professing the faith if someone is questioned by a private person (St. Alphonsus, II, 13, 20).

d) When, unless someone professes the faith, there is grave danger that he will deny the faith.

e) When profession of faith has been prescribed by the Church. Now:

alpha) It must be made by an adult to be baptized⁴ and, if an infant is to be baptized, by the sponsors;⁵ likewise by priests in their ordination⁶ and bishops in their consecration;⁷ specifically, by a person past puberty who is to be baptized and who is converted from heresy or schism to the faith.⁸

beta) From can. 1406, those held to the obligation of making profession of faith, according to the formula⁹ approved by the Apostolic See, are:

1. Before the president or his delegate, those who are present at an Ecumenical or particular Council or at a diocesan Synod with either consultative or deliberative vote; but the president before the same Council or Synod.

2. Before the Dean of the Sacred College, the first Cardinals in the order of priests and of deacons, and the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, those promoted to the cardinalitial dignity.

3. Before a delegate from the Apostolic See, those promoted to an episcopal see, even a nonresidential one, or to the governance of an abbey or prelature nullius, an Apostolic Vicariate, or an Apostolic Prefecture.

4. Before the cathedral Chapter, the Capitular Vicar.

5. Before the local Ordinary or his delegate and before the Chapter, those who have been promoted to a dignity or canonry.

6. Before the local Ordinary or his delegate and before the other consultors, those taken into the office of diocesan consultors.

7. Before the local Ordinary or his delegate, the Vicar General, parish priests, and those for whom provision has been made concerning any benefices, even manual benefices, having care of souls; the rector and professors of sacred theology, canon law, and philosophy in seminaries, at the beginning of each scholastic year or at least at the beginning of the office undertaken; all who are to be promoted to the order of subdiaconate; censors of books, of whom in can. 1393; priests appointed for hearing confessions and sacred preachers, before they are endowed with the faculty of exercising those offices.

8. Before the Ordinary or his delegate, the Rector of a University or Faculty; but before the Rector of a University or Faculty, or his delegate, all professors in a canonically erected University or Faculty, at the beginning of each scholastic year or at least at the beginning of the office undertaken; likewise those who, after examination has been made, are endowed with academic degrees.

9. Before the Chapter or Superior who appointed them, or their delegate, Superiors in clerical religions (can. 1406, § 1).

10. Those who, after having left the prior office, benefice, or dignity, obtain another office or benefice or dignity, even of the same species, must again make profession of faith according to the norm of this canon (can. 1406, § 2), that is, can. 1406, § 1.

gamma) From the decree of the Holy Office,¹⁰ the anti-modernist oath, prescribed by Pius X in the Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum,¹¹ must be made, until the Apostolic See establishes otherwise on this matter, and indeed according to the formula attached to the Motu Proprio, which, with their name signed, they shall give to their Ordinary:

1. Clerics to be initiated into major orders; to each of them beforehand let there be handed a copy both of the profession of faith and of the formula for taking the oath, so that they may know them accurately in advance, with the sanction, as below, for violation of the oath added.

2. Priests appointed for hearing confessions and sacred preachers, before they are endowed with the faculty of exercising those offices.¹² These, however, are not bound when their faculties are prolonged or when they transfer to another diocese.

3. Parish priests, Canons, and Beneficiaries before entering into possession of the benefice.

4. Officials in episcopal curias and ecclesiastical tribunals, not excepting the Vicar General and judges.

5. Those chosen to deliver sermons during the time of Lent.

6. All officials in Roman Congregations or tribunals before the Cardinal Prefect or Secretary of the same Congregation or tribunal.

7. Moderators of religious families and Congregations before they enter office.

8. Doctors both of seminaries and of religious families, before they enter office.¹³

It is disputed whether those designated under 8 are bound to make the oath yearly. Now it seems it must be answered affirmatively; for the Holy Office declared¹⁴ that the prescriptions regarding the anti-modernist oath must remain in their full force until the Apostolic See establishes otherwise on this matter. But, considering the prescriptions regarding the anti-modernist oath, the said oath was to be made yearly by the aforesaid Doctors.¹⁵

Objection 1. The oath is intended as a complement of the profession of faith; and therefore, once the yearly profession of faith has been removed, it should likewise be held as removed. But the profession of faith must be made only at the beginning of the office undertaken (can. 1406, § 1, 7).

Response. The argument adduced seems sufficiently to prove that the reason of complement in the case should not be urged so strongly; in other words, that the anti-modernist oath must be urged even independently of the profession of faith. Besides, there is a special reason for requiring the oath, namely the combating of modernism, and this reason persists and presses, even if the profession of faith is omitted.

Objection 2. The declaration of the Holy Office can regard only the Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, which does not prescribe a yearly oath; but not the declaration of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, which extends the sense of the said Motu Proprio to each year.

Response. Apart from the fact that it is in no way clear that the Motu Proprio does not prescribe a yearly oath, the declaration of the Holy Office is considered to regard the Motu Proprio as it had in fact been in force. But in fact it had been in force according to the norm of the declaration of the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, whether that declaration is extensive or comprehensive.

Note 1. One does not satisfy the obligation of making profession of faith, established by can. 1406, if he makes it through a procurator or before a layman (can. 1407).

Note 2. Any custom against the canons just cited is reprobated (can. 1408), that is, canons 1406 and 1407.

Note 3. One who, contrary to the prescription of can. 1406, neglects to make profession of faith without a just impediment is to be warned, with a suitable term also fixed beforehand; when this has elapsed, if he is contumacious, he is to be punished even by deprivation of office, benefice, dignity, or function; nor meanwhile does he make his own the fruits of the benefice, office, dignity, or function (can. 2403).

2. By reason of the precept of another virtue, profession of faith obliges:

a) When by professing the faith someone would have hope of converting others to the faith, or by not professing it would be a scandal to others (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 3, a. 2, ad 3; St. Alphonsus, II, 11).

b) When by neglecting profession of faith someone would expose himself to grave danger of committing some sin other than one against faith itself; which will rarely have place.

¹ Rom. 10:9 sq.; cf. Matt. 10:32 sq.

² May 28, 1635 (Collectanea, n. 84); cf. Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, June 26, 1790 (Collectanea, n. 602).

³ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1168.

⁴ Roman Ritual, title II, chapter 2, n. 32.

⁵ Roman Ritual, title II, chapter 2, n. 17.

⁶ Roman Pontifical, On the Ordination of a Priest.

⁷ Roman Pontifical, On the Consecration of a Bishop.

⁸ Roman Pontifical, Order for Reconciling an Apostate, Schismatic, or Heretic; cf. Instruction of the Holy Office to the Bishop of Philadelphia, July 20, 1859.

⁹ This formula is found at the beginning of the Code.

¹⁰ March 22, 1918 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1918, p. 136).

¹¹ September 1, 1910 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1910, p. 655).

¹² Thus the Sacred Consistorial Congregation, September 25, 1910 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1910, p. 740).

¹³ Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, September 1, 1910 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1910, p. 655); Sacred Consistorial Congregation, September 25, 1910 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1910, p. 740).

¹⁴ March 22, 1918 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1918, p. 136).

¹⁵ Sacred Consistorial Congregation, September 25, 1910.

Contrary unbelief (see 818), which not only refuses to believe but also assents to contrary errors, has three degrees according to the greater or less number of truths denied or errors admitted in these three degrees. Some theologians see different species of unbelief, while other theologians regard them as only accidental modes or circumstances of the one species of sin.

(a) The most extensive denial of faith is found in infidelity, which rejects both Christ and His revelation. To this form of unbelief belong atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, paganism, polytheism, animism, and denials of Christ and Christianity. The chief religious bodies today that profess such errors are: Confucianism, Taoism and Shintoism (founded in China and Japan), which are polytheistic and practise idolatry and ancestor worship; Brahmanism (founded about 14 centuries before Christ), which is polytheistic or animistic: Buddhism (founded 6th century B.C. in India), which is polytheistic and practises idolatry; Zoroastrianism (founded in Persia about the 7th century B.C.), which is dualistic; Mohammedanism (founded in Arabia in the 6th century A.D.), which makes Mohammed and his religion superior to Christ and Christianity, and rejects the Trinity and the Incarnation. (b) A less complete departure from faith is found when Christ and His revelation are accepted as contained in the figures and prophecies of the Old Testament, but rejected in their fulfillment and development in Jesus and the New Testament. This is the error of Judaism, which today has about 15 million adherents.

(c) A still smaller degree of rejection of faith exists when Christ is recognized as leader and teacher, but not all of His revelation is accepted. This kind of error is called heresy, and those bodies which profess it are known as sects. The chief heresies in times past were Gnosticism and Manicheism in the first centuries; Arianism and Macedonianism in the fourth century; Nestorianism, Monophysism and Pelagianism in the fifth century; Monothelism in the seventh century; Iconoclasm in the eighth century; Photianism in the ninth century; Albigensianism in the eleventh century; Waldensianism in the twelfth century; Wicliffism in the fourteenth century; Hussism in the fifteenth century; Protestantism in the sixteenth century, and Modernism in the twentieth century. Today, the erring Christian groups outside the Church are the Orientals, called Orthodox, and the Protestants.

Real doubt in matters of faith is always unjustifiable in itself, for there is never any just reason for doubting God’s word; but it is not always a sin of heresy or of infidelity. There are two kinds of real doubt, viz., the involuntary and the voluntary. (a) Doubt is involuntary, when it is without or contrary to the inclination of the will, or when it proceeds from lack of knowledge (see 40-55 on the Impediments to Voluntariness). Example: Indeliberate doubts, and doubts that persist in spite of one, lack the inclination of the will, while doubts that proceed from invincible ignorance lack knowledge. (b) Doubt is voluntary, when it is according to inclination and with sufficient knowledge.

What things are to be believed explicitly by necessity of precept? - "The object of faith per se is that by which man is made blessed. But all things which are contained in Sacred Scripture as handed down by God are related per accidens or secondarily to the object of faith.... As to the first credible things, which are the articles of faith, man is bound to believe explicitly, just as he is bound to have faith; but as to other credible things man is not bound to believe explicitly, but only implicitly, or in readiness of soul, insofar as he is prepared to believe whatever divine Scripture contains," S. Th. 2. 2. q. 2, a. 5; q. 1, a. 6 c. ad 1, or divine Tradition.

"Explicitly, by necessity of precept, there must be known and believed, at least in substance: 1. The Apostles' Creed. 2. The Lord's Prayer and the Angelic Salutation. 3. The precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church. 4. The sacraments which are necessary to each one, such as baptism, eucharist, and penance; for concerning the others it suffices to have implicit faith, since explicit faith is necessary only to those who receive them." L. H. A. tr. 4, n. 3. Proof from common practice and the common authority of theologians. The reason is that these contain the substantial heads and foundations of Religion, which one must profess; and the necessary precepts according to which one must live. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 2, aa. 3-6; E. M. 356, 357.

Can those be absolved who are ignorant of those things which by necessity of precept and under mortal sin must be known? - R. Affirmatively, because although they have sinned by omitting to learn, nevertheless they can be sorry for this, with the purpose of learning. But the parish priest, like a parent his children, is bound under mortal sin, by himself or through another, to teach his sheep at least those things which they are bound under mortal sin to know. L. 3.

Pontifical Constitutions concerning the Chinese and Malabar rites are to be had as doctrinal, by no means as disciplinary; and therefore, except for censures, they still hold force. S. O. 5 Aug. 1891. The doctrine concerning Eschatological Renewal must be reproved. S. O. 2 Mar. 1910. It cannot safely be denied, or called into doubt, that the text of St. John in 1 Ep. c. 5, v. 5, concerning the three giving testimony in heaven, is authentic. S. O. 15 Jan. 1897. Those cannot be absolved who hold that the fire of hell is not real, but metaphorical. S. Poenit. 30 Apr. 1890.

With all reverence and submission of soul, all propositions condemned by the Holy See up to the year 1794, in which the propositions of the Synod of Pistoia were condemned, must be reproved. With like reverence and submission of soul must also be reproved: the Propositions condemned by Pius IX in the Encyclical Quanta cura, 8 Dec. 1864, and the Errors of our age, 80, condemned in the Syllabus transmitted to the whole Christian world; the 40 Propositions condemned from recently published works under the name of Antonio Rosmini Serbati, Decr. S. O. 7 Mar. 1888, Post obitum, approved and confirmed by Leo XIII; the doctrines of Americanism, condemned by the same Leo XIII, Brief of 22 Jan. 1899 to Card. Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore; the 65 Propositions condemned by the Decr. S. O. Lamentabili sane exitu, 3 July 1907, containing the chief errors of reformism or modernism, afterward proscribed by Pius X through the Encyclical Letter Pascendi dominici gregis, 8 Sept., and through the Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, 1 Sept. 1904. E. M. 356, 357, 359.

What about the care to be had for doctrine? - It belongs to the Bishop to watch over institutions, whether private or public, and also over the printing of books in such a way that nothing be handed down which is opposed to faith and morals. It also pertains to him by a special title to denounce pernicious books. This is openly established from his office as pastor. Trent s. 5, c. 2 de R.; Leo XIII, C. Officiorum, VIII Kal. Febr. 1896.

Modernism: It is the collection of all heresies. Bishops must watch that it be rooted out if it has been present, and must take care lest it be present. Bishops are to prevent the writings of Modernists from being published and read; especially they are not to permit them to adolescents in Seminaries and to hearers in Universities. Let them institute a council of vigilance, to meet with the Bishop every other month and on a fixed day. Its duty will be to investigate indications of modernism in books and in teachings; likewise to watch over books and journals, lest dangerous questions be treated in these with weak arguments and prejudged questions; finally, in all writings concerning the social matter. By Modernism rash and false novelties are condemned, against the doctrine of Sacred Scripture and that constantly handed down by the Fathers and Catholic Doctors; but by no means is any modern discovery whatever condemned which is proved by solid reason.

Those who are prone to the errors of modernism are to be excluded from teaching and from sacred orders. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi, Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum.

BY a certain class of modern writers Christianity is regarded as a product of natural evolution. According to these critics it is a syncretism, or growing together of ideas, doctrines, and rites which were held in solution in the Greco-Roman world during the early period of the Roman Empire. Christianity, they suppose, adopted certain elements of Judaism, and with wonderful genius mixed them with pagan doctrines and rites, took over various ideas from Roman administration and Roman law, and the Catholic Church of history finally emerged. As an instance of the theory of this process we may take the rite of Baptism. Dr. J. A. McCulloch writes: ‘ First let it be clearly understood that the ceremonial use of water in rites which are sometimes exceedingly simple, but at other times are profoundly symbolic and complex, though now inextricably connected with other opinions regarding its nature and power, has proceeded by a regular process of evolution from the simple use of water as a cleansing and purifying medium.” In such passages as this we see that evolution has become a universal dogma. Religion, like everything else, must be explained by its light; nothing remains to be done but to discover facts which illustrate the gradual process. With regard to the evolution of baptism illustrative facts are discovered in the various mystery religions of the early Christian centuries. These existed in great numbers, gradually overspreading the West from the East. There were mysteries of Isis, Osiris, Demeter, Cybele, Mithras, Attis, and many more. They had their secret doctrines and rites which were jealously guarded from the profane world. If anyone wished to become an adept he was required to submit to a process of preparation before reception. His reception was an initiation into the mysteries, and quite commonly lustration, sprinkling or bathing with water, formed part of the initiation rites. Christian baptism, then, is a rite of initiation, and one of the proofs of this assertion is that certain technical terms used in the pagan mysteries, such as illuminati, mystæ, mystagogus, were applied by some of the early Christian writers to the baptized and to the minister of the Sacrament. This theory breaks down as soon as we descend to particular details and begin to examine them in the light of history. A syncretism is a patchwork of varied and more or less discordant elements. The various parts lack cohesion and unity. They betray their different origins. In man-made religions like modernism this characteristic is conspicuous. Modernism retained certain features of Christianity, but mixed with them ideas taken from modern philosophy and modern science. As Pope Pius X said, it was a synthesis of all the heresies. On the other hand, the striking characteristic of Christianity is its wonderful harmony and unity. It is the revelation of a spiritual universe in which part fits in with part; amid infinite variety unity reigns supreme; law and order dominate the whole. This by itself is a strong argument for its divine origin.