What do you think?
Rate this book
One Hundred Years of Modernism: A Genealogy of the Principles of the Second Vatican Council
One Hundred Years of A Genealogy of the Principles of the Second Vatican Council "Change" was the buzzword of the 1960's and '70's. When it hit the Catholic Church, its faithful were told to expect a glorious springtime. Instead, doubt and instability have prevailed. Where has the destruction come from? All indicators point to the Second Vatican Council (1962 - 65) as its epicenter. To prove it, the author reconstructed a family tree - a genealogy - of Vatican II to uncover the chain of causes that resulted in this Council and its novelties. The Vatican II "effect" is related to a heresy going back one hundred Modernism. The modernists, actively fought by Pope Pius X (1903-14) and condemned by the encyclical Pascendi (1907), had been working ever since to align the Church with new ideas in philosophy. But their "new ideas" had an origin, too. Following back links in the chain, the author reached the first Martin Luther. One Hundred Years of Modernism is an everyman's survey of the history of philosophical ideas from Aristotle's sane realism to the existentialists' insanity. In chronological order, from its roots in Luther's principle of private judgment through its subsequent developments, it shows that modernism, prematurely declared dead after St. Pius X's reign, revived after World War II and reached the highest levels of the Catholic Church's hierarchy. From causes to effects and from masters to disciples. The book is divided into five historical Christian Truth, Protestant critical modernism in Germany, Modernism in France, Neo-modernism in Europe, and Triumphant modernism in Rome itself.
356 pages, Paperback
First published March 27, 2003
14 people are currently reading
82 people want to read
About the author
Dominique Bourmaud
2 books6 followersFr. Dominique (Dominic) Bourmaud, of the Society of St. Pius X was ordained a priest by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1981. He spent most of his priestly life teaching in SSPX seminaries after a short period in Spain. He has been a professor at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary (Ridgefield and Winona), USA, at Nuestra Señora Corredentora in Argentina and Holy Cross Seminary in Australia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 24, 2015
Saint Pius X described Modernism as the "synthesis of all heresies".
One Hundred Years of Modernism does a good job showing the events and actors that caused the advancement of modernism within the church during the 20th century. It is very detailed, and traces different lines of theology and philosophy, from Martin Luther through Kant, and into the 20th century (de Chardin, etc), and culminating in the events during and after the Second Vatican Council.
For those that see the crisis in the Church today, and wonder how it is that we got into this situation, I would highly recommend "One Hundred Years of Modernism".
One Hundred Years of Modernism does a good job showing the events and actors that caused the advancement of modernism within the church during the 20th century. It is very detailed, and traces different lines of theology and philosophy, from Martin Luther through Kant, and into the 20th century (de Chardin, etc), and culminating in the events during and after the Second Vatican Council.
For those that see the crisis in the Church today, and wonder how it is that we got into this situation, I would highly recommend "One Hundred Years of Modernism".
April 7, 2019
This book discusses the modernist infiltration in the Church of God principally their mentality, and their masters, Martin Luther, protestantism, the “rationalists”. And near the VII council Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, etc... How these infiltrators would work behind Pope Pius XII.
July 29, 2024
Informative in places but not a reliable analysis of Modernism.
Where the book is at its best is on the nineteenth century background to Modernism. It explains the problems inherent in Kantian subjectivity and the impact it had on theology through the evolutionism of Hegel and the fideism of Schleiermacher. It also portrays well the developments in (German) biblical criticism which impacted upon Liberal Protestantism, as a forerunner of the ideas which were to manifest within Catholic Modernism.
But when it gets to Modernism itself, especially in the second half of the twentieth century, the author’s own idiosyncratic perspective becomes an important factor which the reader needs to bear in mind. The author is a member of a splinter group which accuses mainstream Catholicism of falling into the error of Modernism. He describes Pope John Paul II, for example, as a ‘dyed in the wool modernist’ (Chp. 24). So, he is not an objective analyst of Modernism. He has a very specific interest in defending his minority perspective on Modernism.
One of the problems with this kind of approach is that it is so focused upon the error of Modernism, that it doesn’t recognise the very real philosophical and theological problems that the modernists were trying to deal with. Condemning their excesses is all well and good, but it does not solve the actual underlying problems that they were struggling with. This is essentially why the Catholic Church struggled to get on top of Modernism in the first half of the twentieth century and it is arguably why the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis had the very limited impact which the author notes.
The author thinks that Kantian scepticism should have simply been rejected as incoherent and inconsistent, and as ‘…fall(ing) into the most lamentable contradictions…’ (Chp.1). Instead, Modernists took it seriously and (allegedly) were happy to deny the law of non-contradiction.
Is that really a fair description of the modernist context? Yes, some philosophers have indeed written off scepticism as incoherent, but that is very much a minority viewpoint. And while some modernists may have embraced contradictions, that is hardly the case of the figure who the author identifies as ‘the arch-modernist Karl Rahner’ (Introduction).
What this shows is that one of the problems with the book is that it is overly simplistic to the point of setting up strawmen which it can then knock down. For example, later in the book the author accuses Vatican II of rejecting ‘the infallible condemnation of Religious Freedom’ which the nineteenth century popes taught (Chp. 17). However, it is not a mainstream Catholic view that the condemnation of Religious Freedom was an infallible teaching. That is just the opinion of the author and his splinter group.
Elsewhere in the book the author laments Pope Paul VI’s (modernist) refusal to accept that the Qumram manuscript 7Q5 is a fragment of Mark’s Gospel. Allegedly this would disprove modernist claims about the late date of the gospel, so the mainstream modernist Catholics are keeping quiet about it (Chp. 23).
Really? The text 7Q5 contains 18 characters in Greek which are in varying stages of legibility. Yes, some people do think that it is a line of text which can now be found in Mark’s Gospel. But many, if not most, scholars do not think that. The text is genuinely controversial and there is no settled academic view on the matter. So, when popes keep quiet about the matter it is not due to their Modernist heresy. It is simply due to the fact that they do not want to wade into an open question where there is no academic consensus. Once again, the book oversimplifies matters and presents the narrative to fit its own ideological perspective.
Another problem in the book is overly simplistic generalisations. Apparently scholastics are called schoolmen ‘…because they are of the same school of thought on all fundamental issues’ (Chp.3). Really? So, scholasticism such as Aquinas’ realism and Ockham’s nominalism shared the same school of thought?
Another example of these kinds of generalisations occurs in chapter 7 where the author tells us that in the sixteenth century the Church said that ‘the Holy Scriptures were not written to show how the heavens go round… but how to go to heaven.’ If that were so, then there would have been no condemnation of Galileo. So once again the book is presenting an over-simplification, which is not quite right.
And so on. And so on.
The book is also needlessly confrontational and arguably offensive in places. For example, it tells us ‘the Asian religions, to maintain their absurd beliefs, necessarily commit mental suicide’ (introduction). And variously throughout the book individuals and approaches are accused of ‘ambiguity and duplicity’ (chp 8) or ‘treachery and deceit’ (Chp 13). A good book should convince its readers by the cogency of its arguments: not by name calling.
Overall: not a book to be recommended.
Where the book is at its best is on the nineteenth century background to Modernism. It explains the problems inherent in Kantian subjectivity and the impact it had on theology through the evolutionism of Hegel and the fideism of Schleiermacher. It also portrays well the developments in (German) biblical criticism which impacted upon Liberal Protestantism, as a forerunner of the ideas which were to manifest within Catholic Modernism.
But when it gets to Modernism itself, especially in the second half of the twentieth century, the author’s own idiosyncratic perspective becomes an important factor which the reader needs to bear in mind. The author is a member of a splinter group which accuses mainstream Catholicism of falling into the error of Modernism. He describes Pope John Paul II, for example, as a ‘dyed in the wool modernist’ (Chp. 24). So, he is not an objective analyst of Modernism. He has a very specific interest in defending his minority perspective on Modernism.
One of the problems with this kind of approach is that it is so focused upon the error of Modernism, that it doesn’t recognise the very real philosophical and theological problems that the modernists were trying to deal with. Condemning their excesses is all well and good, but it does not solve the actual underlying problems that they were struggling with. This is essentially why the Catholic Church struggled to get on top of Modernism in the first half of the twentieth century and it is arguably why the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis had the very limited impact which the author notes.
The author thinks that Kantian scepticism should have simply been rejected as incoherent and inconsistent, and as ‘…fall(ing) into the most lamentable contradictions…’ (Chp.1). Instead, Modernists took it seriously and (allegedly) were happy to deny the law of non-contradiction.
Is that really a fair description of the modernist context? Yes, some philosophers have indeed written off scepticism as incoherent, but that is very much a minority viewpoint. And while some modernists may have embraced contradictions, that is hardly the case of the figure who the author identifies as ‘the arch-modernist Karl Rahner’ (Introduction).
What this shows is that one of the problems with the book is that it is overly simplistic to the point of setting up strawmen which it can then knock down. For example, later in the book the author accuses Vatican II of rejecting ‘the infallible condemnation of Religious Freedom’ which the nineteenth century popes taught (Chp. 17). However, it is not a mainstream Catholic view that the condemnation of Religious Freedom was an infallible teaching. That is just the opinion of the author and his splinter group.
Elsewhere in the book the author laments Pope Paul VI’s (modernist) refusal to accept that the Qumram manuscript 7Q5 is a fragment of Mark’s Gospel. Allegedly this would disprove modernist claims about the late date of the gospel, so the mainstream modernist Catholics are keeping quiet about it (Chp. 23).
Really? The text 7Q5 contains 18 characters in Greek which are in varying stages of legibility. Yes, some people do think that it is a line of text which can now be found in Mark’s Gospel. But many, if not most, scholars do not think that. The text is genuinely controversial and there is no settled academic view on the matter. So, when popes keep quiet about the matter it is not due to their Modernist heresy. It is simply due to the fact that they do not want to wade into an open question where there is no academic consensus. Once again, the book oversimplifies matters and presents the narrative to fit its own ideological perspective.
Another problem in the book is overly simplistic generalisations. Apparently scholastics are called schoolmen ‘…because they are of the same school of thought on all fundamental issues’ (Chp.3). Really? So, scholasticism such as Aquinas’ realism and Ockham’s nominalism shared the same school of thought?
Another example of these kinds of generalisations occurs in chapter 7 where the author tells us that in the sixteenth century the Church said that ‘the Holy Scriptures were not written to show how the heavens go round… but how to go to heaven.’ If that were so, then there would have been no condemnation of Galileo. So once again the book is presenting an over-simplification, which is not quite right.
And so on. And so on.
The book is also needlessly confrontational and arguably offensive in places. For example, it tells us ‘the Asian religions, to maintain their absurd beliefs, necessarily commit mental suicide’ (introduction). And variously throughout the book individuals and approaches are accused of ‘ambiguity and duplicity’ (chp 8) or ‘treachery and deceit’ (Chp 13). A good book should convince its readers by the cogency of its arguments: not by name calling.
Overall: not a book to be recommended.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews