Modernism in the Catholic Church describes attempts to reconcileCatholicism withmodern culture,[1] specifically an understanding of theBible andSacred Tradition in light of thehistorical-critical method and new philosophical and political developments of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The termmodernism—generally used by its critics rather than by adherents of positions associated with it—came to prominence inPope Pius X's 1907encyclicalPascendi Dominici gregis, where he condemned modernism as "the synthesis of allheresies".[2]
Writing in theCatholic Encyclopedia in 1911, theJesuit Arthur Vermeersch gave a definition of modernism in the perspective of the Catholicheresiology of his time:
"In general we may say that modernism aims at that radical transformation of human thought in relation to God, man, the world, and life, here and hereafter, which was prepared byHumanism and eighteenth-century philosophy, and solemnly promulgated at theFrench Revolution."[3]
The modernist movement was influenced and accompanied byProtestant theologians and clergy likePaul Sabatier andHeinrich Julius Holtzmann. On the other hand, modernist theologians were critical ofProtestant theology and engaged inCatholic apologetics against a Protestant understanding of Christianity, as in the famous attack ofAlfred Loisy inL'Évangile et l'Église (1902) onAdolf von Harnack'sDas Wesen des Christentums (1900).[4] The modernist movement has a parallel in theChurch of England where the journalThe Modern Churchman was founded in 1911.
The controversy on modernism was prominent in French and British intellectual circles and to a lesser extent in Italy, but in one way or another concerned most of Europe and the Americas.[5] Pope Pius X saw modernism as a universal threat which required a global reaction.[6]
Although the so-called modernists did not form a uniform movement, they responded to a common grouping of religious problems which transcended Catholicism alone around 1900: first of all the problem ofhistoricism, which seemed to render all historical forms of faith and tradition relative; secondly, through the reception of modern philosophers likeImmanuel Kant,Maurice Blondel, andHenri Bergson, the neo-scholastic philosophical and theological framework set up byPope Leo XIII had become fragile. The assertion that objective truth is received subjectively is fundamental for the entire controversy.[7] This focus on the religious subject engendered a renewed interest in mysticism, sanctity[8] and religious experience in general.[9] The aversion against a religious "extrinsicism" also led to a new hermeneutics for doctrinal definitions which were seen as secondary formulations of an antecedent (immanent) religious experience (George Tyrrell; cfr. also the Christianpersonalism of Lucien Laberthonnière).[10]
.jpeg)
The controversy was not restricted to the field of philosophy and theology. On the level of politics,Christian Democrats like the laymanMarc Sangnier in France and the priestRomolo Murri in Italy, but also the left wing of theCentre Party and the Christian Unions in Germany, opted for a political agenda which was no longer completely controlled by the hierarchy. Pope Pius X reacted by excommunicating Murri in 1909, bydissolving Sangnier'sLe Sillon movement in 1910, and by issuing the encyclicalSingulari quadam in 1912 which clearly favoured the German Catholic workers' associations over and against the Christian Unions.[11] Furthermore, antimodernists like Albert Maria WeissOP,[12] and the SwissCaspar Decurtins,[13] which were both favoured by Pius X, would even find "literary modernism" on the field of the Catholicbelles-lettres which did not meet their standards oforthodoxy.[14]
In the eyes of the antimodernist reaction, the "modernists" were a uniform and secret sect within the Church. From a historical perspective, one can discern networks of personal contacts between "modernists", especially aroundFriedrich von Hügel andPaul Sabatier. On the other hand, there was a great diversity of opinions within the "movement", from people ending up in rationalism (e.g. Marcel Hébert,[15]Albert Houtin,Alfred Loisy, Salvatore Minocchi, andJoseph Turmel)[16] to a mild religious reformism, even including neo-scholastic theologians like Romolo Murri.[17] This perception of a broad movement from left to right was already shaped by the protagonists themselves.[18][19]
The termLiberal Catholicism originally designated a current of thought within the Catholic Church that was influential in the 19th century, particularly in France, that aimed to reconcile the church withliberal democracy. It was largely identified with French political theorists such asFelicité Robert de Lamennais,Henri Lacordaire, andCharles Forbes René de Montalembert.[20] In the second half of the 19th century the term was also applied to theologians and intellectuals likeIgnaz von Döllinger,St. George Jackson Mivart,John Zahm, andFranz Xaver Kraus who wanted to reconcile the Catholic faith with the standards of modern science and society in general.
In 1881, the Belgian economistCharles Périn, a conservative Catholic layman, published a volume titledLe modernisme dans l'église d'après les lettres inédites de La Mennais ("Modernism in the Church according to the unpublished letters of La Mennais"). Périn was the first author to use the termmodernism in a Catholic context – before him the DutchCalvinistAbraham Kuyper had attacked the rationalist German theology of the ProtestantTübingen School as "modernism" (Het modernisme een fata morgana op christelijk gebied, 1871). For Périn, 'modernism' was a label for the attempts of Liberal Catholics to reconcile Catholicism with the ideals of theFrench Revolution and of democracy in general. He saw a danger that humanitarian tendencies in secular society would be received within the Catholic Church. This "social" definition of Catholic modernism would be taken up again later byIntegralism. Périn's usage of the termmodernism was accepted by the Roman journal of the Jesuits, the semi-officialCiviltà Cattolica, which added the aspect of an exaggerated trust in modern science to this concept. When fiveexegetical books of the French theologianAlfred Loisy were placed on theIndex of Forbidden Books in December 1903, theHoly See’s official paperL'Osservatore Romano distinguished between "modernity" and "modernism", which entailed heresy in religion, revolution in politics, and error in philosophy. The termmodernism now began to replace older labels like 'Liberal Catholicism' or (especially in Germany) 'Reform Catholicism'.[21]
.jpg)
The connection between 'Liberal Catholicism' and 'modernism' has been subject to controversial discussion. In 1979, Thomas Michael Loome stressed the continuity between the two and talked of a "vertical dimension" of the modernist controversy.[22] This "invention of tradition" was criticized – amongst others – byNicholas Lash.[23] It is clear, however, that the Joint Pastoral of the English episcopate against "Liberal Catholicism" (December 1900) did not only react onSt. George Jackson Mivart, but also on the writings of the later "modernist"George Tyrrell. The letter had been prepared in Rome and was inspired byRafael Merry del Val who became Tyrrell's chief opponent under Pius X.[24] Furthermore, "modernists" like Tyrrell compared their own difficulties after the publication ofPascendi with the difficulties of "liberal Catholics" likeIgnaz von Döllinger afterVatican I. In December 1907, Tyrrell wrote to a German correspondent: "Is it not time to reconsider the pseudo-council of 1870 and to ask whether theAlt-Katholiks were not, after all, in the right?Ex fructibus eorum etc. ["You will know them by their fruits"; Matthew 7:16] may surely be used as a criterion ofUltramontanism. Individuals, like myself, can afford to stand aloof as Döllinger did. But can multitudes live without sacraments and external communion? And yet now no educated man or woman will be able to remain in communion with Pius X."[25] Tyrrell was also inspired by the posthumous publication ofLord Acton'sHistory of Freedom and Other Essays in 1907.[26]
Although the so-called "Modernist Crisis"[5] is usually dated between 1893 (the publication date ofPope Leo XIII's encyclicalProvidentissimus Deus) and 1914 (the death ofPope Pius X),[27][28] the controversy had, and continues to have, both a pre-history and a post-history.
With notable exceptions likeRichard Simon or theBollandists, Catholic studies in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries had tended to avoid the use ofcritical methodology because of its rationalist tendencies. Frequent political revolutions, the bitter opposition of "liberalism" to the Church and the expulsion of religious orders from France and Germany had made the church understandably suspicious of the new intellectual currents.[29]
Following theFrench Revolution and the subsequent coming to power of theConservative Order, theMagisterium had enacted harsh condemnations againstliberalism,rationalism,pantheism,panentheism,deism,indifferentism,socialism,communism and other popular philosophies.[30][31] Non-Catholic Bible translations and interpretations had been met with similar scorn.[32][33]
In 1863,Ernest Renan publishedVie de Jésus (Life of Jesus). Renan had trained for the priesthood before choosing a secular career as a philologist and historian. His book described Jesus asun homme incomparable – a man, no doubt extraordinary, but only a man. The book was very popular, but cost him his chair ofHebrew at theCollège de France. Among Renan's most controversial ideas was that "a miracle does not count as a historical event; people believing in a miracle does." Renan's Jesus is a man of simple piety and almost unimaginable charisma whose main historical significance was his legion of followers.[34]
In the same year, Church historianIgnaz von Döllinger invited about 100 German theologians to meet inMunich (Münchener Gelehrtenversammlung, 1863)[35] to discuss the state of Catholic theology. In his address, "On the Past and Future of Catholic Theology", Döllinger advocated greater academic freedom of theology within the Church, formulating a critique ofneo-scholastic theology and championing the historical method in theology.[36] Döllinger's friendCharles de Montalembert gave two powerful speeches at the Catholic Congress inMalines that year too, insisting that the church had to reconcile itself with civil equality andreligious freedom.[37][38]
On 8 December 1864Pope Pius IX issued the encyclicalQuanta cura, decrying what he considered significant errors afflicting the modern age. It condemned certain propositions such as: "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion [...] constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control"; on civil law alone depend all rights of parents over their children, and especially that of providing for education; and thatreligious orders have no legitimate reason for being permitted.[39] Some of these condemnations were aimed at anticlerical governments in various European countries, which were in the process of secularizing education and taking overCatholic schools, as well as suppressing religious orders and confiscating their property.[40] Attached to the encyclical was aSyllabus Errorum, which had been condemned in previous papal documents, requiring recourse to the original statements to be understood. TheSyllabus reacted not only to modern atheism, materialism, and agnosticism, but also to Liberal Catholicism and the new critical study of the Bible. It was also a direct reaction to Döllinger's speech in Munich and Montalembert's speeches in Malines.[41] Among the propositions condemned in theSyllabus were:
TheFirst Vatican Council was held from December 1869 to October 1870. The council provoked a degree of controversy even before it met. In anticipation that the subject of papal infallibility would be discussed, many bishops, especially in France and Germany, expressed the opinion that the time was "inopportune".Ignaz von Döllinger led a movement in Germany hostile to the definition of infallibility. In Döllinger's view, there was no foundation for this definition in Catholic tradition.[42] After the definition, Döllinger was excommunicated by theArchbishop of MunichGregor von Scherr in 1871. Montalembert died before the end of the Council.
The dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith,Dei Filius, tried to steer a middle way betweenrationalism andfideism. It presented a concept ofrevelation which highlighted the aspect of divine instruction by revelation.[43][44] The dogmatic ConstitutionPastor Aeternus addressed the primacy of the pope and rejected the idea that decrees issued by the pope for the guidance of the church are not valid unless confirmed by the secular power. It also declaredpapal infallibility when speakingex cathedra on matters of faith and morals.[45] Other matters were deferred whenthe Italian infantry entered Rome and the Council was prorogued.[46] The Council remained formally open until 1960, when it was officially closed byPope John XXIII, in order to convene theSecond Vatican Council.[47]
The First Vatican Council's decisions were so controversial that they even caused a schism of some German, Swiss, Austrian and Dutch liberal Catholics, who broke away from the Vatican and merged with theJansenists, who had maintained a somewhat precarious hierarchy in the Netherlands, into theOld Catholic Church, which exists to this day.[48]
Pope Leo XIII, Pius IX's successor, wanted to advancewhat he understood as the true Christian science in every way: he worked for a revival ofThomism as Christian philosophy, he encouraged the study of history and archaeology, and in 1881 he opened up the Vatican Archives for researchers.[49] In 1887 he encouraged the study of the natural sciences, and in 1891 opened a newVatican Observatory.[50] Leo's response to the rationalist trend to undermine the authority of sacred scripture was for the Church to have its own trained experts. In 1893, withProvidentissimus Deus, Pope Leo gave the first formal authorization for the use of critical methods in biblical scholarship.[51] “Hence it is most proper that Professors of Sacred Scripture and theologians should master those tongues in which the sacred Books were originally written,[52] and have a knowledge of natural science.”[53] He recommended that the student of scripture be first given a sound grounding in the interpretations of theFathers such asTertullian,Cyprian,Hilary,Ambrose,Leo the Great,Gregory the Great,Augustine andJerome,[54] and understand what they interpreted literally, and what allegorically; and note what they lay down as belonging to faith and what is opinion.[55][56]
AlthoughProvidentissimus Deus tried to encourage Catholic biblical studies, it also created problems. In the encyclical, Leo XIII excluded the possibility of restricting theinspiration and inerrancy of the bible to matters of faith and morals. Thus, he interfered in the lively discussion about biblical inspiration in France, whereMaurice d'Hulst, founder of theInstitut Catholique de Paris, had opted for a more open solution in his article onLa question biblique.[57] Not only exegetes of thisécole large were now in trouble, but also the prominent French theologianAlfred Loisy who worked for a thoroughly historical understanding of the Bible,[58] in order to open up spaces for theological reform.[59] The Roman Congregation of the Index began to prepare a censuring of Loisy's main works, but until the death of Leo XIII in 1903 no decision was taken, as there was also considerable resistance within theRoman Curia against a premature judgment on matters of biblical interpretation.[60]
On the whole, official Catholic attitudes to the study of Scripture at the turn of the 20th century were of cautious advance, and a growing appreciation of what had promise for the future.[61] In 1902, Pope Leo XIII instituted thePontifical Biblical Commission, which was to adapt Catholic Biblical studies to modern scholarship and to protect Scripture against attacks.[62]
In 1890 theÉcole Biblique, the first Catholic school specifically dedicated to the critical study of the bible, was established inJerusalem by DominicanMarie-Joseph Lagrange. In 1892Pope Leo XIII gave his official approval. While many of Lagrange's contemporaries criticized the new scientific and critical approach to the Bible, he made use of it. Lagrange founded theRevue Biblique, and his first articles drew sharp criticism, but Pope Leo was not inclined to discourage new ideas.[63] As long as Pope Leo lived, Lagrange's work quietly progressed, but after Leo's death, an ultra-conservative reaction set in.[63] Thehistorical-critical method was considered suspect by the Vatican. Père Lagrange, like other scholars involved in the 19th-century renaissance of biblical studies, was suspected of being a modernist.[64] In 1912 Lagrange was given an order for theRevue Biblique to cease publication and to return to France. The École itself was closed for a year, and then Lagrange was sent back to Jerusalem to continue his work.
%2c_peint_par_Rahauts_en_1899..jpg)
Louis Duchesne was a French priest, philologist, teacher, and amateur archaeologist. Trained at theÉcole pratique des Hautes Études in Paris, he applied modern methods to church history, drawing together archaeology and topography to supplement literature and setting ecclesiastical events within the contexts of social history. Duchesne held the chair of ecclesiastical history at theInstitut Catholique de Paris, and was frequently in contact with like-minded historians among theBollandists, with their long history of critical editions ofhagiographies.[65] Duchesne gained fame as a demythologizing critical historian of the popular, pious lives of saints produced bySecond Empire publishers.[66] However, hisHistoire ancienne de l'Église, 1906–1911 (translated asEarly History of the Christian Church) was considered too modernist by the church at the time, and was placed on theIndex of Forbidden Books in 1912.
Alfred Loisy was a French Catholic priest, professor and theologian generally credited as the "father of Catholic Modernism".[67][68] He had studied at the Institut Catholique under Duchesne and attended the course on Hebrew byErnest Renan at theCollège de France. Harvey Hill says that the development of Loisy's theories have to be seen also in the context of France's Church-State conflict, which contributed to Loisy's crisis of faith in the 1880s. In November 1893, Loisy published the last lecture of his course, in which he summed up his position onbiblical criticism in five propositions: thePentateuch was not the work ofMoses, the first five chapters ofGenesis were not literal history, theNew Testament and theOld Testament did not possess equal historical value, there was a development in scriptural doctrine, and Biblical writings were subject to the same limitations as those by other authors of the ancient world.[69][70] When his attempts at theological reform had failed, Loisy came to regard the Christian religion more as a system of humanistic ethics than as divine revelation.[71] He was excommunicated in 1908.[72]
Pope Pius X, who succeeded Leo XIII in August 1903, engaged almost immediately in the ongoing controversy. Reacting on pressure from the Parisian Archbishop CardinalFrançois-Marie-Benjamin Richard, he transferred the censuring of Loisy from theCongregation of the Index to theSupreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. Already in December 1903, Loisy's main exegetical works were censured.[60] At the same time the Holy Office began to prepare a syllabus of errors contained in the works of Loisy. Due to ongoing internal resistance, especially from theMaster of the Sacred Palace, the papal theologian Alberto LepidiOP, this Syllabus was published only in July 1907 as the decreeLamentabili sane exitu, which condemned sixty-five propositions from the field of biblical interpretation and the history of dogma.[73][74]Lamentabili did not mention the termmodernism, and it seems that Pius X and his close collaborators like CardinalRafael Merry del Val and CardinalJosé de Calasanz Vives y Tutó were not satisfied with the document.
Therefore, in the summer of 1907, another document was prepared in a small circle around the Pope and already in September 1907, Pius X promulgated the encyclicalPascendi dominici gregis, which formulated a synthesis of modernism and popularized the term itself. The encyclical condemned modernism as embracing everyheresy.[75]Pascendi described the "modernist" in seven "roles": as purely immanentist philosopher, as believer who relies only on their own religious experience, as theologian who understands dogma symbolically, as historian and biblical scholar who dissolves divine revelation by means of the historical-critical method into purely immanent processes of development, as apologete who justifies the Christian truth only from immanence, and as reformer who wants to change the church in a radical way.Agnosticism,immanentism,evolutionism andreformism are the keywords used by the Pope to describe the philosophical and theological system of modernism. The encyclical describes the modernist as an enemy of scholastic philosophy and theology and resistant to the teachings of theMagisterium; their moral qualities are curiosity, arrogance, ignorance, and falsehood. Modernists deceive the simple believers by not presenting their entire system, but only parts of it. Therefore, the encyclical wants to reveal the secret system of modernism.Pascendi contained also disciplinary measures for the promotion of scholastic philosophy and theology in the seminaries, for the removal of suspect professors and candidates for the priesthood, for a more rigid censuring of publications and for the creation of an antimodernist control group in every diocese.[76] All bishops and superiors of religious orders had to report regularly on the execution of these measures.[77][2]
Pius frequently condemned the movement, and was deeply concerned that its adherents could go on believing themselves strict Catholics while understanding dogma in a markedly untraditional sense (a consequence of the notion of evolution of dogma). Therefore, in 1910, he introduced ananti-modernist oath to be taken by all Catholic priests.[78]
To ensure enforcement of these decisions, MonsignorUmberto Benigni organized, through his personal contacts with theologians and laymen in various European countries, a secret network of informants who would report to him those thought to be teaching condemned doctrine or engaging in political activities (like Christian Democratic Parties, Christian Unions) which were also deemed to be "modernist" because they were not controlled by the Catholic hierarchy. This group was called theSodalitium Pianum, i.e. Fellowship ofPius (V), with the code name ofLa Sapinière.[79] Its frequently overzealous and clandestine methods often hindered rather than helped the Church combat modernism.[80][81] Benigni also published the journalLa Corrispondenza Romana/Correspondance de Rome, which initiated press campaigns against practical and social modernism throughout Europe.[82] Benigni fell out with Cardinal Secretary of StateRafael Merry del Val in 1911. TheSodalitium was eventually dissolved in 1921. Recent research has stressed theantisemitic character of Benigni's antimodernism.[83]
.jpg)
With his slogan "Church and Age unite!",[84] ArchbishopJohn Ireland ofSaint Paul, Minnesota, became the hero of reformers in France (Félix Klein), Italy[85] and Germany (Herman Schell) in the 1890s. The modernist controversy in the United States was thus initially dominated by the conflict on "Americanism", which afterPascendi was also presented as a "forerunner" of modernism in Catholic heresiology.[86] "Americanism" was perceived as an influence ofclassical liberalism in theCatholic Church in the United States, particularly regarding the concept ofseparation of Church and State. Such tendencies alarmed Pope Leo XIII, who condemned them, at the urging of Archbishop Ireland's old opponent fromMinnesota ArchbishopJohn Joseph Frederick Otto Zardetti, in the apostolic letterTestem benevolentiae nostrae (1899).[87][88] Archbishop Ireland had to be extremely careful to avoid condemnation for his views.[89]
Following the issuing ofPascendi, the antimodernist measures were especially felt in theArchdiocese of New York: TheNew York Review was a journal produced bySaint Joseph's Seminary. It printed papers by leading Catholic Biblical experts who were part of the newly emerging schools ofBiblical criticism, which raised eyebrows in Rome. Around 1908, theReview was discontinued, ostensibly for financial reasons, although there is strong evidence that it was suppressed for modernist tendencies.[90][91] Despite his support for modernization, Archbishop Ireland actively campaigned against modernism following thePascendi encyclical: this apparently inconsistent behavior stemmed from Ireland's concept of a "golden mean" between "ultraconservatism", rendering the Church irrelevant, and "ultraliberalism," discarding the Church's message.[89]
After the pontificate of Pius X, there was a gradual abatement of attacks against modernists. The newPope Benedict XV, who was elected to succeed Pius X in 1914, once again condemned modernism in his encyclicalAd beatissimi Apostolorum, but also urged Catholics to cease condemning fellow believers.[92] Nevertheless, theological antimodernism continued to influence the climate within the Church.[93] TheHoly Office, until 1930 under the guidance of CardinalRafael Merry del Val, continued to censure modernist theologians and rationalist exegesis was once again condemned by the Pontiff in his encyclicalSpiritus Paraclitus.[94]
In the 1930s, Loisy'sopera omnia (“all works”) were placed on theIndex Librorum Prohibitorum. DuringWorld War I, French propaganda claimed that theCatholic Church in Germany was infested with modernism.[95] Already in 1913 it had been claimed by the French academicEdmond Vermeil that the CatholicTübingen School in the mid-19th century, with its interest for the "organic development" of the church in history, was a "forerunner" of "modernism"[96] – a claim which has been debated ever since.[97]
Between World War I and the Second Vatican Council,Réginald Garrigou-LagrangeOP was a "torchbearer of orthodoxThomism" against modernism.[98] Garrigou-Lagrange, who was a professor of philosophy and theology at thePontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas,Angelicum, is commonly held to have influenced the decision in 1942 to place the privately circulated bookUne école de théologie: le Saulchoir (Étiolles-sur-Seine 1937) byMarie-Dominique ChenuOP[99] on the Vatican's "Index of Forbidden Books" as the culmination of a polemic within theDominican Order between theAngelicum supporters of a speculative scholasticism and the French revival Thomists who were more attentive to historical hermeneutics, such asYves CongarOP[100]
At the beginning of the 1930s, Congar read theMémoires of Loisy and realised that modernism had addressed problems in theology which were still not resolved by neo-scholastic theology. Chenu and Congar, two protagonists of theNouvelle théologie,[101] began to prepare a dossier on this topic. In 1946, Congar wrote to Chenu that neo-scholastic theology had already begun to "liquidate" itself on a daily basis and that the Jesuits were among the fiercest "liquidators".[102] Congar'sChrétiens désunis was also suspected of modernism because its methodology derived more from religious experience than from syllogistic analysis.[103][104]
A first relaxation of the strict anti-modernist measures imposed on biblical scholars by Pius X came in 1943: on that year,Pope Pius XII issued the encyclicalDivino afflante Spiritu, regulating the issue of Biblical exegesis. The encyclical inaugurated the modern period of Roman CatholicBiblical studies by encouraging the study oftextual criticism (or 'lower criticism'), pertaining to text of the Scriptures themselves and transmission thereof (for example, to determine correct readings) and permitted the use of thehistorical-critical method (or 'higher criticism') to be informed bytheology,Sacred Tradition, andecclesiastical history on the historical circumstances of the text, hypothesizing about matters such as authorship, dating, and similar concerns.[105][106] Catholic Biblical scholarRaymond E. BrownSS described the encyclical as a "Magna Carta for biblical progress".[107]
Despite his cautious openings on the issue of biblical criticism, Pius XII was suspicious of the new theological trends, which he feared could cause a modernist revival: in 1950, he published the encyclicalHumani generis, in which he condemned "certain new intellectual currents" in the Church, accusing them of relativism and attacking them for reformulating dogmas in a way that was not consistent with Church tradition and for followingbiblical hermeneutics that deviated from the teachings ofProvidentissimus Deus,Spiritus Paraclitus andDivino afflante Spiritu. The encyclical specifically accused these new "trends" of having embraced the modernist heresy condemned by Pius X inPascendi Dominici gregis.[108][109] The encyclical did not mention any particular theologian but was widely interpreted as a condemnation of theNouvelle théologie and was followed by an anti-modernist purge inLe Saulchoir and Fourvière.[110]
Following the election ofPope John XXIII and the calling of theSecond Vatican Council, anti-modernist polemics declined and many theologians associated with theNouvelle théologie were gradually rehabilitated and many of them took part in the Council with the qualification ofperitus. However,Pope Paul VI once again condemned modernism in his encyclicalEcclesiam Suam (1964), calling it "an error which is still making its appearance under various new guises, wholly inconsistent with any genuine religious expression" and described it as "an attempt on the part of secular philosophies and secular trends to vitiate the true teaching and discipline of the Church of Christ".[111][112] Despite this, the Oath Against Modernism was abolished on 17 July 1967 by theCongregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the approval of Paul VI.[113]
Following the Council, the moreconservative supporters ofNouvelle théologie had important careers in the Church:Jean DaniélouSJ,Yves CongarOP andHenri de LubacSJ were made cardinals byPope John Paul II, while Joseph Ratzinger was elected asPope Benedict XVI in 2005.Hans Urs von Balthasar died two days before being created cardinal. The same honours were not granted to the moreliberal members, who were gradually marginalised due to their extreme views:Hans Küng was stripped from his theological license by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1979 for questioningpapal infallibility, whileEdward SchillebeeckxOP was repeatedly condemned by the Congregation and even by Pope Paul VI himself (encyclicalMysterium fidei) due to his heterodox views aboutChristology and theeucharist.[114]
References to modernism continue to be frequent among conservative andtraditionalist Catholics.[115][116][117]
Notes
{{cite book}}:|journal= ignored (help)
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain.{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)Bibliography
