It is a fact well known to students of physical geography that the inland seas have, in common with the greater oceans abroad, their tides and currents of more or less account. And, after all, when it is considered to what these movements owe their origin, it is not surprising that, wherever we have the gathering together of waters, which God called seas, the influences producing such movements should be apparent.
A great land-locked sea, the Church of Rome throughout the centuries, in many respects has appeared to be shut off from the tides and movements of human thought and mental activity, not to speak of something higher still—the free circulation of divine truth. Yet in reality she cannot pretend to have been uninfluenced throughout by changing opinion. The main currents as they flowed on, have always sooner or later penetrated to her depths, or have been reproduced at least on her placid surface. However quiet the composure she may profess, however complete the stagnation to onlookers may appear, isolation from the effects of the intellectual progress around, modern history, in particular, forbids her to claim. It may be questioned, however, if in all her history the tide of contemporary thought has ever produced within her borders a movement of exactly the same character or intensity as that now appearing under the name of Modernism. The mention of the famous Galileo recalls no truly analogous movement. The Reformation was of another character entirely. The agitation in the thirteenth century again has been seized upon by Liberal Catholics as an appropriate historical allusion. It was concerning Aristotle's natural philosophy during the time of Pope Gregory IX., who at first forbad its study, and step by step thereafter came round to its sanction. The precedent may, or may not, be followed by Pope Pius X.; but there is no true parallel, for the nature and the extent of the dispute are both entirely different. Wherein this is unique may appear, if we but consider, on the one hand, not only the nature and history of Modernism in the Latin church, but also the unprecedented nature of that more widespread eruption of which this is but a local manifestation, and on the other, remember the essential character of the special zone here seen to be, equally with the rest, affected.
First, then, to consider the nature and history of the movement itself. As stated by Father Tyrrell, a prominent Modernist in our own country, who also has received the distinction of being “excommunicated” on account of his rebellious attitude, the chief points raised in the controversy may be summed up as follows—
On the one side “there are those who hold that the Roman Catholic Church, with the Papacy, the sacraments, and all its institutions and dogmas, was in its entirety the immediate creation of Christ when upon earth; that there has been no vital development, but only mechanical unpacking of what was given in a tight parcel two thousand years ago; that the scriptures were dictated by God, and are a final court of appeal, while all doctrinal guidance, etc., is mediated through the infallible Pope from God to the Church.”
On the other side are those, with whom he ranges himself, still loyal to the adopted church of John Henry Newman and others in a spiritual ancestry of which they are proud, “who do not believe that truth has been stagnating for centuries in theological seminaries; but has been streaming on with ever-increasing force and volume in the channels which liberty has opened to its progress.” In contrast to those “who will not allow the least truth or value to the mental and moral progress of recent centuries,” theirs is a belief “in time, in growth, in vital and creative evolution.” Of one point in all this we may take especial note—on the one hand are those who stand for art authoritative standard of truth, on the other those who press for liberty and free thought.
Then as to the history of the controversy. The campaign against Modernism is held to have been inaugurated by the late Pope's Encyclical of 1893. The Americanist controversy, and the condemnation of Schell's works were early stages in that campaign, also under his late Holiness. An astute ecclesiastical statesman as Leo XIII. is on all hands allowed to have been—even his hand at last was forced, by the magnitude of the evil becoming apparent. But with the advent of Pius X. all appearance of hesitancy was laid aside. A different temper at once became apparent in the conduct of affairs. The trouble with France was its first-fruits politically, while in the theological field our Modernist friends early came under the notice of the Holy See. Almost immediately, an eminent writer, Abbe Loisy, regarding whose case a certain amount of action had already been taken, had his chief writings placed upon the Index. Others, less heard of, followed—Houtin, Denis, Georgel. The distinguished French Catholic Viollet's brochure on the Syllabus and the infallibility of the Pope, and Laberthonniere's philosophical works have since shared the same fate, as did even a novel by Fogazzaro, the Italian, characteristically a work of fiction, and which has had a phenomenal circulation. There is also Le Roy, whose statement of the Modernist position is described as masterly, besides Battifol and Tyrrell.
On the part of the Vatican itself, there has been, not merely the placing upon the Index Expurgatorius the books of these individuals, but positive action to stem the tide has been taken. The Biblical Commission has given two findings—one, already noticed in this magazine, dealing with the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the other maintaining the Johannine authorship of the fourth Gospel, and its historical character. It is asserted that the present Pope secured these judgments, so satisfactory to believers everywhere, by a process we might describe as packing the jury, the expert members appointed by Leo XIII. being swamped by ignorant reactionaries. Be that as it may, the Modernists have considered that the Commission has been pressed into service against them.
The in no wise uncertain sound which the trumpet has given forth is indeed disconcerting, not only to those in the front rank of that movement, but to such moderate critics as Dr. Barry, whose little book, “The Tradition of Scripture,” one learns with surprise, received the imprimatur of none less than the Archbishop of Westminster. Somewhat ruthless in its antagonism to all but an ultra-conservative standpoint towards the Bible, the reigning power must appear to such to be. In comparison with scholars beyond her pale, these Romanist higher critics have for the most part been contented with but a short flight into the airy realms of “speculative” theology. And even Loisy himself, who cannot be described as moderate, has kept up the appearance of being most conciliatory towards, what our own critics do not hesitate to sneer at as, Bibliolatry. He lays it down as an axiom, and constantly emphasizes that “the critical method of dealing with scripture does not mean forgetting the supernatural character of the sacred books.” But regardless of, and quite ungrateful for, all such concessions, the Vatican will tolerate no half measures. In this respect at least Rome shows more real insight as to essentials than others who are deceived by similarly hollow professions. Thus if the mild tone on the one side is in contrast to much of the criticism we are accustomed to, the uncompromising stand on the other just as greatly differs from that which those who guide and control Protestant thought adopt.
And a similar intolerance is shown all round to so-called liberal tendencies of whatever kind. Eminent Romanist laymen, both in France and Germany, who thought to relieve the tension—the one petitioning their bishops, the other appealing direct in extremely modest fashion for a reform of the Index—fared but ill, being, in the rebuke administered, accused of impertinence and conspiracy respectively. In Italy such things as the literary and social movement identified with the name of Romolo Murri proved troublesome thorns in the side of the new Pope. Upon its intellectual side the danger was considered greatest no doubt, the open letter of the group of priests to Pius X being serious enough. In the one department advocating reform of the Church's attitude towards democracy it is no less revolutionary in the other by its avowed conviction of the reality of “the revolution which has been wrought in our conception both of the nature of truth, and of the methods necessary to its establishment.” This remarkable manifesto of Liberal Catholicism was no doubt a direct reply to the Papal Allocution of April, 1907. On that occasion the Pope called upon the bishops to co-operate with him in driving out those who were “rebels, who dreamed of the renewal of dogma by a return to the pure gospel apart from the authority of the church and of theology.”
Then came another decree of the Holy Office, the Syllabus, of which the last twelve articles in particular were directly aimed against Modernism. Take, as a sample of the gravity of what is in dispute, Article 64— “It is an error to say that the progress of the sciences requires a change in the Christian doctrinal conceptions of God, of creation, of revelation, of the Word incarnate, and of the redemption.” But the climax was reached when the Encyclical of September, 1907, appeared, which definitely pronounces Modernism to be dangerous in philosophy, faith, theology, history, criticism, and reform, and thence draws the conclusion that Modernism is the synthesis of all heresy, and must logically lead to atheism. There is no call upon us to consider the remedial measures which the final section of that deliverance enumerates, but its analysis of the Liberal Catholic position is most decidedly noteworthy. The issue is clearly between “the extrinsic conception of authority,” as M. Paul Sabatier has called it, and that new conception of truth as “not communicated directly and from the outside by God to men,” but as a kind of internal inspiration not to be hound by any dogmatic expression.
So much for Liberal Catholicism itself, but to see it in its true perspective we must be reminded of its relation to a larger field. Recent times, as all are aware, have witnessed a new and most important departure in the theological world. Among other contributions, the nineteenth century has given us Biblical literary science, otherwise known as higher or historical criticism. And this it is which furnishes the most important item of the Modernist program, on its intellectual side at least. Now this new “science” (!) has raised a question of intense interest and moment to believers everywhere, and to trace its workings is a matter of first importance. The claim of the literary method of studying the scriptures to be a recognized and legitimate science, though but of yesterday, is already conceded in full by not a few Protestant scholars and theologians. There are as yet but few results, as far as (what they will call) established conclusions are concerned; but of what so-called conclusions there are, much parade has been made. There are many professing Christians, however, still far from concurring in any conclusions, who yet profess to believe the methods of this science legitimate and harmless, and deprecate a firm stand as to the real inspiration of the scriptures as being either obscurant or over-suspicious of new light. But simple believers, to whom the Bible is indeed the word of God, have all along distrusted the entire scheme, method and conclusions alike. Not only so, but they emphatically deny not only its harmlessness but also its legitimacy.
Further, its remarkable development has impressed many of them with the thought that the movement is in reality a great and grave crisis in the closing days of the church's testimony, if not indeed a most impressive precursor of the predicted apostasy. Consider how revolutionary the whole system is. In the comparatively short time it has been with us, it is no exaggeration to say, that it has succeeded in q great measure in transforming the standpoint of modern theology towards the Bible. The age-long strife between truth and error has now entered on an entirely new phase. Christendom has witnessed in the past many lapses from the faith, and departure from the truth has since early times been characteristic of the mass; but that which is now in progress is properly speaking neither lapse nor departure, but surrender of the divinely-appointed standard of truth. Doubtless surrender is not what is at present demanded; re-adjustment is all that is asked. But the re-adjustment is likely to affect, and in many cases has affected “our conception of the nature of the truth” as well as of “the methods necessary to its establishment.” [J. T. I
(To be continued)