CATECHISM ON MODERNISM – PART I – THE MODERNIST AS THEOLOGIAN – I. THEOLOGICAL IMMANENCE AND SYMBOLISM

PART I
THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS

CHAPTER III

THE MODERNIST AS THEOLOGIAN
I. THEOLOGICAL IMMANENCE AND SYMBOLISM

Q. At this point the way is opened for us to consider the Modernists in the theological arena a difficult task, yet one that may be disposed of briefly. What, then, does their system seek to do?

A. ‘It is a question of effecting the conciliation of faith with science, but always by making the one subject to the other.’

Q. What is the Modernist system?

A. ‘In this matter the Modernist theologian takes exactly the same principles which we have seen employed by the Modernist philosopher the principles of immanence and symbolism and applies them to the believer.’

Q. What is the process?

A. ‘The process is an extremely simple one. The philosopher has declared: The principle of faith is immanent; the believer has added: This principle is God; and the theologian draws the conclusion: God is immanent in man. Thus we have theological immanence.

So, too, the philosopher regards it as certain that the representations of the object of faith are merely symbolical; the believer has likewise affirmed that
the object of faith is God in Himself; and the theologian proceeds to affirm that: The representations of the divine reality are Symbolical. And thus we have
theological symbolism.’

Q. What judgment must be passed on this theological immanence and symbolism?

A. ‘These errors are truly of the gravest kind, and the pernicious character of both will be seen clearly from an examination of their consequences.’

Q. To begin with theological symbolism, what consequences follow from it?

A. ‘To begin with symbolism, since symbols are but symbols in regard to their objects, and only instruments in regard to the believer, two consequences follow.’

Q. What is the first consequence?

A. ‘It is necessary, first of all, according to the teachings of the Modernists, that the believer do not lay too much stress on the formula as formula, but avail himself of it only for the purpose of uniting himself to the absolute truth which the formula, at once reveals and conceals, that is to say, endeavours to express, but without ever succeeding in doing so.’

Q. What is the second consequence?

A. ‘They would also have the believer make use of the formulas only in so far as they are helpful to him; for they are given to be a help, and not a hindrance.’

Q. Must, then, the believer employ the formulas as he finds them convenient?

A. ‘Yes, answers the Modernist, but with proper regard for the social respect due to formulas which the public magisterium has deemed suitable for expressing the common consciousness, until such time as the same magisterium shall provide otherwise.’

Q. And, as regards theological immanence, what is really the meaning of the Modernists?

A. ‘Concerning immanence, it is not easy to deter mine what Modernists precisely mean by it, for their own opinions on the subject vary.’

Q. What are these different opinions of the Modernists, and their consequences ?

A. ‘Some understand it in the sense that God working in man is more intimately present in him than man is even in himself, and this conception, if properly understood, is irreproachable. Others hold that the divine action is one with the action of nature, as the action of the first cause is one with the action of the secondary cause ; and this would destroy the supernatural order. Others, finally, explain it in a way which savours of Pantheism, and this, in truth ; is the sense which best fits in with the rest of their doctrines.’

II. DIVINE PERMANENCE

BACK TO CONTENTS