What Is Modernism? by John O. Corliss

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 26, 1908

What Is Modernism?

By John O. Corliss

J. O. CORLISS

The terms “Modernism,” and “Modernist” are of themselves modern, as applied to religious dogmas. The phase of religious thought which has been christened by this name was set forth in a late issue of the New York Independent as “the most important and most ominous event in the history of the Christian church that has appeared since the declaration of the dogma of infallibility by the Vatican Council.”

It can not be denied that the movement has stirred the religious world to its very foundation, and many theories as to its meaning and outcome have issued from the press of various countries. Many seem to regard the matter in an ominous light, though none of the general statements so far have given any very definite reasons for their views. To the earnest student of prophecy, however, the movement means more than it can to those who reason about it from a purely philosophical standpoint. These see in it a war of religious opinion, which will prove a test to all the inhabitants of the nations.

This controversy, into which the whole religious world seems disposed to enter, has been started within the fold of the Roman Catholic Church, the largest communion of professed believers in Christ, in all the earth. One thing which gives so much prominence to the affair has been the general belief that the will of the pope of Rome has, by force of the most complete religious organization known, extended to, and entirely swayed the impulses of, the most remote member of the Church of Rome. So far, however, from this being true, the Roman curia have discovered enough heresy in the church to oblige the pope to issue an encyclical condemning every one who does not believe the medieval doctrines of the church, which were made the test of heresy during the Middle Ages.

This document brands Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies,” and, in order to stamp it out, the papacy recommends inquisitorial methods in all schools whatsoever. Subversive books are thus to be torn from the hands of the laity; suspected teachers are to be deprived of their holdings, and college professors are to be driven from their chairs. And further, error of all kinds is to be combatted “even to the shedding of blood.” All this, that the least taint of this most hateful doctrine may be wiped out. Prof. Charles A. Briggs, in a late issue of the New York Independent, says very aptly that “this encyclical divides the Catholic Church throughout the world more distinctly than it ever has been divided before into irreconcilable camps, between which a war of extermination has been declared.”

That which gives some force to Professor Briggs’ statement is the contention of the Modernists that the encyclical has grossly misrepresented their positions. This is not the place to review the technical differences between the papacy and its antagonists. The gist of the matter is that the opponents of the papacy deny the infallibility of the pope, hence disclaim his right to bear absolute sway over the consciences of men. They therefore advocate the reconstruction of the church government, on a constitutional and democratic basis.

Modernism is not a system of well-defined doctrines to which all liberal Catholics subscribe. On the other hand, while each representative of the offending ones, like Josef Müller of Bavaria, Abbé Müller of Munich, the archbishops of Algiers and Avignon, the bishop of Tarentaise, in France, Father Tyrrell of England, besides many Italian, French, German, and even American church notables, maintains his own personal views regarding particular tenets of the faith, like average higher critics, all are agreed on the question of reform in the church government.

Now as to how this controversy is affecting those “higher up” among so-called Protestants. These see much to be commended in the positions of the Modernists, as stated by themselves. For instance, they claim that every man has the right “to work for the common good, in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself about the authority of the church.” This sentiment seems to appeal to many Protestants as the only reasonable thing, and makes them feel like drawing nearer to the doctrines of Modernists. In other words, every man having an independent doctrine, feels that he can heartily unite with a movement which lets him believe what he chooses, and yet holds him in bonds of fellowship. This sentiment is now in the very air men breathe, and is permeating the real vitals of religious impulse everywhere. This seems indeed to suggest the

ground upon which all Christendom will ere long make its final decisions for weal or woe. The contentions of Modernism are being accepted by prominent disseminators of religious thought, and are growing in popularity. The appeal made by Professor Briggs, in the North American Review, for February, 1908, in behalf of Modernism as against the medieval doctrines of the papacy, is this: “The ancient creeds were construed with reference to the principles of the Platonic philosophy. There is a basis of union between the two, but there are also irreconcilable differences. The teachings of Jesus and his apostles were on the basis of the Old Testament, and had no manner of relation to either Plato or Aristotle. Which is to be the master of theology, Aristotle or Plato or Christ? The encyclical virtually dethrones Christ, and enthrones St. Thomas as the vicar of Aristotle.”

There is much truth in these words, if they could be allowed to carry proper weight in determining the tenets of men’s religious faith. But they have been used in this setting for a single purpose, and that is to turn men against the papacy, and in favor of liberal Catholicism. Let this work proceed to legitimate results, and the papacy will be driven to modify its doctrines, to save its following, as was done in the Council of Trent, to prevent the Reformation from desolating its ranks. Indeed, it is stated on authority that the proposition is now under consideration to reassemble the Vatican Council, in order to enhance the authority of the pope, and to protect the papacy from fatal encroachments by the Modernist doctrines.

Should such a thing occur, the world will have opportunity to watch such a battle as religious controversy has never before inaugurated. The eyes of the nations even now are turned in expectation toward Rome, and many are predicting with more or less confidence the outcome of the issue. Among these the New York Independent is willing to risk its reputation in the following augury: “We prophesy further that within ten years the syllabus and the encyclical will be a forgotten dead letter, interesting to historians, and that the successor of Pius X will be a man of the liberal spirit of Leo XIII.”

We can not tell what was in the mind of the author of these words when penning them. The prediction might be fulfilled in any one of several ways. It might come by a modification of papal dogmas, through a decision of a general council, or it might come by the sudden death of the present pope, or in other ways not necessary to mention. One thing, however, reveals itself in the words, and that is a preference for results as to the outcome of the controversy.

It is yet too early to say what will come. Yet we believe that somehow the fulfilment of divine forebodings concerning the union of religious sentiment in opposition to the remnant of the woman’s seed will be accomplished. We shall not have long to wait, either, for a solution of the problem, since events are now moving so rapidly toward a decisive culmination. “Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments.”

Mountain View, Cal.