Bp Fellay: "I didn't mean to say Pope is a Modernist in theology, but in action"

[JuniorCouncilor]

On the contrary, he has made many statements diametrically opposed to modernist beliefs.

OK, you got my attention.  What statements has he made that are diametrically opposed to modernist beliefs?

I'd like to believe he's not one, I just find it incredible, and as such I feel I'm losing respect for Bp. Fellay because of this flip-flop.

[Jayne]

On the contrary, he has made many statements diametrically opposed to modernist beliefs.

OK, you got my attention.  What statements has he made that are diametrically opposed to modernist beliefs?

I'd like to believe he's not one, I just find it incredible, and as such I feel I'm losing respect for Bp. Fellay because of this flip-flop.

I can't find it on the Vatican website so I have to use a second hand account of this homily:

In his papal morning Mass at the Vatican's Santa Marta guesthouse on Oct. 11, Pope Francis referenced the Gospel of Matthew (12:22-27), in which Jesus cures a man possessed but is then accused of using the power of Satan to drive out the devil.

Pope Francis said, "There are some priests who, when they read this Gospel passage, this and others, say: 'But, Jesus healed a person with a mental illness'. They do not read thus, no? It is true that at that time, they could confuse epilepsy with demonic possession; but it is also true that there was the Devil."

"And we do not have the right to simplify the matter," said Pope Francis, "as if to say: 'All of these [people] were not possessed; they were mentally ill.' No! The presence of the Devil is on the first page of the Bible, and the Bible ends as well with the presence of the Devil, with the victory of God over the Devil."

Pope Francis: We Have No Right to Say Demonic Possession is Just 'Mental Illness' – Devil is on Page 1 of the Bible

Pope Francis then said that people must be vigilant and know that, if they advance in faith, the Devil will leave them alone for awhile but he always returns. "Today's Gospel begins with the Devil being cast out and ends with the Devil coming back," said the Pope. "St. Peter said, 'It's like a fierce lion that circles us.' It is like that."

As for his comments on Satan and other demons, the Pope said, "Some may say, but, Father, you're too old fashioned. You're frightening us with these things.' No, it's not me! It is the Gospel! And these are not lies: it is the Word of the Lord. Let us ask the Lord for the grace to take these things seriously. He came to fight for our salvation. He won against the Devil. Please, let's not do business with the Devil. He wants to come back home, to take possession ... Don't accept relativism, be vigilant. And always with Jesus!"

Pope Francis is referring to the modernist interpretation of the Scripture (which I have bolded) and then rejecting it.

I only have time for one example now, but I can find others, if you would like.

[Geremia]

In his papal morning Mass at the Vatican's Santa Marta guesthouse on Oct. 11, Pope Francis referenced the Gospel of Matthew (12:22-27), in which Jesus cures a man possessed but is then accused of using the power of Satan to drive out the devil.

Pope Francis said, "There are some priests who, when they read this Gospel passage, this and others, say: 'But, Jesus healed a person with a mental illness'. They do not read thus, no? It is true that at that time, they could confuse epilepsy with demonic possession; but it is also true that there was the Devil."

"And we do not have the right to simplify the matter," said Pope Francis, "as if to say: 'All of these [people] were not possessed; they were mentally ill.' No! The presence of the Devil is on the first page of the Bible, and the Bible ends as well with the presence of the Devil, with the victory of God over the Devil."

Pope Francis: We Have No Right to Say Demonic Possession is Just 'Mental Illness' – Devil is on Page 1 of the Bible

Pope Francis then said that people must be vigilant and know that, if they advance in faith, the Devil will leave them alone for awhile but he always returns. "Today's Gospel begins with the Devil being cast out and ends with the Devil coming back," said the Pope. "St. Peter said, 'It's like a fierce lion that circles us.' It is like that."

As for his comments on Satan and other demons, the Pope said, "Some may say, but, Father, you're too old fashioned. You're frightening us with these things.' No, it's not me! It is the Gospel! And these are not lies: it is the Word of the Lord. Let us ask the Lord for the grace to take these things seriously. He came to fight for our salvation. He won against the Devil. Please, let's not do business with the Devil. He wants to come back home, to take possession ... Don't accept relativism, be vigilant. And always with Jesus!"

[JuniorCouncilor]

Pope Francis said, "There are some priests who, when they read this Gospel passage, this and others, say: 'But, Jesus healed a person with a mental illness'. They do not read thus, no? It is true that at that time, they could confuse epilepsy with demonic possession; but it is also true that there was the Devil."

I will grant you, that's a good example.  I'm not sure it's really worth the time for either of us for you to look up any more, though.  The fact is, just one aspect of Modernism would be enough to make him a Modernist, and there's quite a few reasons to believe that he embraces quite a few more than one.

Would a Catholic (as opposed to Modernist) Cardinal take part in a Jewish religious ceremony?  Would he have a Protestant minister lay hands on him?  Would he urge Protestants to give their flocks "the pure gospel" without (obviously) telling them to convert?

Would a Catholic (as opposed to Modernist) Pope overturn the tradition of washing the feet of men only in the Mandatum ceremony of Maundy Thursday?  Would he take away the right of the Franciscans of the Immaculate to celebrate the Mass of All Time-- a right explicitly granted both by Pope St. Pius V and Pope Benedict XVI?  Would he say (paraphrase) "who am I to judge sodomists?"  Would he say (paraphrase) "in the past the Church has been too obsessed with preventing murder?"  Would he appoint at least two Modernists (Marx and Maradiaga) to his personal council to 'reform the Curia?'  In the course of said 'reform of the Curia' would he have appointed a man who is known, quite publically at this point, to have been a practicing homosexuals for years after becoming a cleric (Mgr. Ricca), to be head of the Vatican Bank?  Would he say (paraphrase) "in the past, the Church hasn't gone far enough in joining the synagogues of Satan in their false worship, but I'm the man with the ambition and humility to do it?"

Out of all this, two points.

1.  I have not seen you even attempt to defend Maradiaga and Marx.  Do you find them indefensible, or do you just not bother because they are not the Pope, and thus the stakes are not high enough for it to be worthwhile?  Note that I'm not saying by any means that that would be wrong-- we all have our time limitations to deal with.  My point is that you might well be willing to admit that there ARE severe problems with these men,because they are not the Pope.  It seems to me that if that's the case, you ought to consider the influence it has on your thought when the man in question is, at least as far as all appearances can determine, the sweet Vicar of Christ on earth.

2.  The other points above I could ignore, or just chalk up to having a bad or corrupt cleric/pope, as we have many times before in the past.  The questions that touch ecumenism-- i.e., the 1st Commandment-- not so much.  If the Pope can't get that right, it's awfully hard to see why anyone should care what else he does get right.

[Geremia]

Pope Francis said, "There are some priests who, when they read this Gospel passage, this and others, say: 'But, Jesus healed a person with a mental illness'. They do not read thus, no? It is true that at that time, they could confuse epilepsy with demonic possession; but it is also true that there was the Devil."

I will grant you, that's a good example.  I'm not sure it's really worth the time for either of us for you to look up any more, though.  The fact is, just one aspect of Modernism would be enough to make him a Modernist, and there's quite a few reasons to believe that he embraces quite a few more than one.

Doesn't Pascendi identify this as a tactic of the Modernists?

[Godfrey of Bouillon]

JuniorCouncilor, don't forget to add to the list that Francis, while Archbishop of Buenos Aires, sent Catholics in his diocese to a Lutheran minister for exorcisms.

And participated in Jewish prayer ceremonies.

[Jayne]

I will grant you, that's a good example.  I'm not sure it's really worth the time for either of us for you to look up any more, though.  The fact is, just one aspect of Modernism would be enough to make him a Modernist, and there's quite a few reasons to believe that he embraces quite a few more than one.

If a person has just one of the core, defining characteristics of modernism, then it is fair to call him a modernist.  But there are characteristics that may be associated with modernism that are nevertheless incidental to it.  Displaying these incidental characteristics, no matter how many, does not make a person a modernist.  I think this is the distinction that Bishop Fellay is getting at when he distinguishes between modernist theology and modernist actions.

Would a Catholic (as opposed to Modernist) Cardinal take part in a Jewish religious ceremony?  Would he have a Protestant minister lay hands on him?  Would he urge Protestants to give their flocks "the pure gospel" without (obviously) telling them to convert?

Would a Catholic (as opposed to Modernist) Pope overturn the tradition of washing the feet of men only in the Mandatum ceremony of Maundy Thursday?  Would he take away the right of the Franciscans of the Immaculate to celebrate the Mass of All Time-- a right explicitly granted both by Pope St. Pius V and Pope Benedict XVI?  Would he say (paraphrase) "who am I to judge sodomists?"  Would he say (paraphrase) "in the past the Church has been too obsessed with preventing murder?"  Would he appoint at least two Modernists (Marx and Maradiaga) to his personal council to 'reform the Curia?'  In the course of said 'reform of the Curia' would he have appointed a man who is known, quite publically at this point, to have been a practicing homosexuals for years after becoming a cleric (Mgr. Ricca), to be head of the Vatican Bank?  Would he say (paraphrase) "in the past, the Church hasn't gone far enough in joining the synagogues of Satan in their false worship, but I'm the man with the ambition and humility to do it?"

You are setting this up as a false dichotomy in which a person is either a Catholic or a modernist.  There are other possibilities.  While, I suppose, technically modernism is the synthesis of all heresies, it does not make sense to refer to every possible error as modernism.  We can speak more clearly and precisely if we give each error its proper name.  I also find the words and actions that you have listed in the above paragraphs to be problematic. However, I do not see them as coming from the core modernist tenets.

Out of all this, two points.

1.  I have not seen you even attempt to defend Maradiaga and Marx.  Do you find them indefensible, or do you just not bother because they are not the Pope, and thus the stakes are not high enough for it to be worthwhile?  Note that I'm not saying by any means that that would be wrong-- we all have our time limitations to deal with.  My point is that you might well be willing to admit that there ARE severe problems with these men,because they are not the Pope.  It seems to me that if that's the case, you ought to consider the influence it has on your thought when the man in question is, at least as far as all appearances can determine, the sweet Vicar of Christ on earth.

I am willing to admit that there are severe problems with the Pope.  I do not, however, define modernism as "having severe problems."  I also think that there are severe problems with Maradiaga and Marx.  I have not looked at them in detail, but from what I have seen, they could be modernists.  I agree that this is cause for concern.

2.  The other points above I could ignore, or just chalk up to having a bad or corrupt cleric/pope, as we have many times before in the past.  The questions that touch ecumenism-- i.e., the 1st Commandment-- not so much.  If the Pope can't get that right, it's awfully hard to see why anyone should care what else he does get right.

I agree that the area of ecumenism is one in which there have been repeated troubling incidents.  However, I get the sense that these arise out of imprudence more than indifferentism or relativism.  He seems to think that he is doing some sort of evangelical outreach. 

I have not been saying that I approve of these things or that they do not matter.  I am only making the point that, in order to call them modernism, they would have to be based on a specific reasoning or motivation.

[Jayne]

Pope Francis said, "There are some priests who, when they read this Gospel passage, this and others, say: 'But, Jesus healed a person with a mental illness'. They do not read thus, no? It is true that at that time, they could confuse epilepsy with demonic possession; but it is also true that there was the Devil."

I will grant you, that's a good example.  I'm not sure it's really worth the time for either of us for you to look up any more, though.  The fact is, just one aspect of Modernism would be enough to make him a Modernist, and there's quite a few reasons to believe that he embraces quite a few more than one.

Doesn't Pascendi identify this as a tactic of the Modernists?

Pascendi identified a modernist tactic of mixing in good, orthodox things with their errors.  But this goes beyond that.  Pope Francis is explicitly rejecting several key modernists ideas in this homily.

[Godfrey of Bouillon]

Pope Francis said, "There are some priests who, when they read this Gospel passage, this and others, say: 'But, Jesus healed a person with a mental illness'. They do not read thus, no? It is true thjat at that time, they could confuse epilepsy with demonic possession; but it is also true that there was the Devil."

I will grant you, that's a good example.  I'm not sure it's really worth the time for either of us for you to look up any more, though.  The fact is, just one aspect of Modernism would be enough to make him a Modernist, and there's quite a few reasons to believe that he embraces quite a few more than one.

Doesn't Pascendi identify this as a tactic of the Modernists?

Pascendi identified a modernist tactic of mixing in good, orthodox things with their errors.  But this goes beyond that.  Pope Francis is explicitly rejecting several key modernists ideas in this homily.

Think about this statement. It's precisely the point.

[Geremia]

Pope Francis said, "There are some priests who, when they read this Gospel passage, this and others, say: 'But, Jesus healed a person with a mental illness'. They do not read thus, no? It is true thjat at that time, they could confuse epilepsy with demonic possession; but it is also true that there was the Devil."

I will grant you, that's a good example.  I'm not sure it's really worth the time for either of us for you to look up any more, though.  The fact is, just one aspect of Modernism would be enough to make him a Modernist, and there's quite a few reasons to believe that he embraces quite a few more than one.

Doesn't Pascendi identify this as a tactic of the Modernists?

Pascendi identified a modernist tactic of mixing in good, orthodox things with their errors.  But this goes beyond that.  Pope Francis is explicitly rejecting several key modernists ideas in this homily.

Think about this statement. It's precisely the point.

???
The point is that he should be positive, never mentioning error because that would be "mixing in good, orthodox things with their errors"? I thought neglecting to mention and define error was a trait of neo-Modernists à la Vatican II, which has no anathema sits?

[Geremia]

Pascendi identified a modernist tactic of mixing in good, orthodox things with their errors.  But this goes beyond that.  Pope Francis is explicitly rejecting several key modernists ideas in this homily.

Yet affirming them other times...

[Jayne]

Pascendi identified a modernist tactic of mixing in good, orthodox things with their errors.  But this goes beyond that.  Pope Francis is explicitly rejecting several key modernists ideas in this homily.

Yet affirming them other times...

Where has Francis affirmed the key ideas of modernism? 

[Geremia]

Pascendi identified a modernist tactic of mixing in good, orthodox things with their errors.  But this goes beyond that.  Pope Francis is explicitly rejecting several key modernists ideas in this homily.

Yet affirming them other times...

Where has Francis affirmed the key ideas of modernism?

When he said that doubt is good ("The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt.") and "doctrinal security" is bad. Agnosticism is the root of Modernism.

[INPEFESS]

Pope Francis said, "There are some priests who, when they read this Gospel passage, this and others, say: 'But, Jesus healed a person with a mental illness'. They do not read thus, no? It is true thjat at that time, they could confuse epilepsy with demonic possession; but it is also true that there was the Devil."

I will grant you, that's a good example.  I'm not sure it's really worth the time for either of us for you to look up any more, though.  The fact is, just one aspect of Modernism would be enough to make him a Modernist, and there's quite a few reasons to believe that he embraces quite a few more than one.

Doesn't Pascendi identify this as a tactic of the Modernists?

Pascendi identified a modernist tactic of mixing in good, orthodox things with their errors.  But this goes beyond that.  Pope Francis is explicitly rejecting several key modernists ideas in this homily.

Think about this statement. It's precisely the point.

???
The point is that he should be positive, never mentioning error because that would be "mixing in good, orthodox things with their errors"? I thought neglecting to mention and define error was a trait of neo-Modernists à la Vatican II, which has no anathema sits?

Well, they do "condemn" error, in the sense that they condemn that which is opposed to their system.

For example, as you just mentioned a few posts ago, they frown on doctrinal security and lack of doubt. These are just a few things a Modernist would take issue with.

[Miriam_M]

What strikes me most consistently about Francis is a Latin American preference for the personal over the intellectual, for the concrete over the theoretical, and for the practical over the doctrinal.

I am not some kind of expert on Latin America. This is just my observation after years of interacting with Hispanics, and also observing the way they approach religion in general and Catholicism in particular.  I've never known any of them to be much enamored with, or even interested in, theology.  It's not so much that they're keen on heterodoxy; I think overall they do not question, at least directly, doctrine/dogma.  I just think they have little use for it.  They treat doctrine and theology, both, as if both are largely irrelevant to their personal lives.  Prayer is relevant; devotion is relevant; and personal needs are important to their religious sensibilities.

Think about it:  Any major mainstream Catholic theologians (not "liberation" theologians) come out of Latin America?

It's a pastoral understanding of Catholicism -- both from the point of view of the lay Catholic and the clergy. And it seems to stay there.  (A point I've made to friends, about Francis; he seems uninterested in the ecclesiastical Church; he seems exclusively interested in fulfilling a pastoral role.)

Now, when it comes to the "pastoral" angle of V2, I just think it's a convenient happenstance.  One feeds the other iin Francis' case.

Just my .02.  I could be way off, naturally.