In his 1907 Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists, Pope St. Pius X rejected the idea that the discoveries of science or history should lead to an “adjusting” of doctrine (Lamentabili Sane 64).
In its 1965 Gaudium et Spes Vatican II said that the findings of science raise new questions, which need new theological investigations (GS 62).
Is Vatican II subtly disagreeing with Pius X, and even changing his view about what should count as Modernism?
1. Pius X’s Position
In Lamentabili Sane (1907) Pope Pius X stated that faith should not be “re-adjusted” to fit the findings of modern science (LS 64). He insisted that Biblical scholars cannot correct the Church’s teachings about interpretations of the Bible (LS 2). Nor can the findings of historical studies change doctrine (LS 3).
These claims are directed against the Modernists, who insisted that truth is mutable (LS 58). The Modernists thought that the Church must constantly rediscover the truth in each era. At the turn of the twentieth century that meant using modern science and history to evaluate and to reinterpret traditional Church teaching.
Some Modernists went further and suggested that the “role” of doctrine itself needed to change. Doctrines are useful, not truthful (LS 26). They should be viewed as political slogans which people unite around, but no one needs to actually believe.
Understandably, Pius X was horrified by these kinds of views. They effectively turned the profession of faith into something which had more in common with Machiavellian politics than religious devotion.
Keen to stamp out Modernism, Pius X called it out for making an erroneous assumption. It assumed that whenever science or history conflicted with Church teachings, then Church teachings must always change. Pius X rejected that assumption. But he expressed himself in a way which can be read to make an opposite assumption: that when there was a conflict, Church teachings must never change.
Between the binary extremes of “always change” and “never change” there is an important nuance, as not all Church teaching is equally authoritative, and so not all Church teaching is equally unchangeable.
We can see the significance of this nuance in two theological problems which Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII had to deal with, where science and history challenged Church teaching.
2. The Johannine Comma
The Johannine Comma is a piece of text which appears in the Biblical First Epistle of John. In the following quote, the bracketed text is what is known as the Johannine Comma.
7 And there are Three who give testimony (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one).
8 (And there are three that give testimony on earth:) the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one. (1 John 5:7–8 Vulgate)
In a modern Catholic Bible, the same text is typically rendered as:
So there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord. (1 John 5:7–8)
The bracketed text appeared in the Latin Vulgate Bible, which the Council of Trent mandated in 1546, stating:
If anyone receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the Old Latin vulgate edition… let him be anathema. (Session 4)
The Johannine Comma seemed to be a “part” of the Bible, as defined by the Council of Trent.
By the nineteenth century the science of textual analysis was querying whether the Johannine Comma was an authentic part of the Bible. Manuscript evidence suggested that it had originated as a comment in the margin of an ancient manuscript, and it had accidentally been copied into the text of the Bible itself.
When the question of the Johannine Comma was put to Pope Leo XIII in 1897, the Holy Office denied that it could be queried (Denzinger 3681).
However, the scientific evidence against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma was indisputable. The Church’s position began to look irrational. So in 1927 Pope Pius XI allowed Catholics to question the authenticity of the Johannine Comma (Denzinger 3682). As a result, it no longer appears in most modern Bibles.
This can be interpreted as an example of the Church changing its teaching about the Bible, due to the force of scientific (textual) evidence.
3. The Sacrament of Orders
Meeting between 1431 and 1449 the Council of Florence taught that:
the priesthood is bestowed by the handing over of a chalice with wine and a paten with bread. (Session 8, Decree for the Armenians)
This view seemed plausible in the fifteenth century because the bestowing of instruments (i.e., chalice and patten) was a long-standing feature of contemporary Latin Ordination rites.
However, by World War II, historians had amassed a significant amount of evidence which showed that bestowing the instruments did not occur in the most ancient ordination rites. So the Council of Florence could not be right in asserting that it was essential to the validity of ordination.
In 1947 Pope Pius XII accepted the findings of historians. In Sacramentum Ordinis, he changed the teaching of the Council of Florence, insisting instead that ordination is conferred by the imposition of hands.
Scholars still argue over whether this incident shows that a general council can err. But the Council of Florence’s views on ordination were always theologically peculiar. On the one hand the Council was insisting that instruments must be transmitted for a valid ordination to take place. But on the other hand the Council accepted the validity of Greek Orthodox Masses where priests were ordained without the transmission of instruments.
Regardless of whether Pius XII was “correcting” an error or “clarifying” a peculiarity, his actions seem to be an example of historical studies changing Church teaching.
4. Were Popes Pius XI and Pius XII Modernists?
Pius X condemned as Modernism the idea that Biblical sciences can change Church teaching about the Bible (LS 2). But Pius XI accepted the findings of Biblical sciences and changed the Church’s teachings about the Johannine Comma.
Pius X condemned as Modernism the idea that historical studies can change Church teaching (LS 3). But Pius XII accepted the findings of historians and changed Church teachings about the Sacrament of Orders.
This could raise the question whether Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were Modernists. But it could also raise the question whether they accidentally look like Modernists, because of the overly broad way in which Pope Pius X has construed Modernism?
If we ask why Popes Pius XI and Pius XII acted as they did, then the answer is to be found in the teachings of Vatican I.
5. Vatican I
When Vatican I met in 1870, one of the issues it resolved was whether theology should be Rationalistic or Fideistic.
Fideists insisted that reason and evidence were irrelevant to faith. Vatican I rejected that view, stating: “Faith should be in accordance with reason” (Dei Filius 3.4). Rationalists insisted that reason should determine faith. Vatican I rejected that view, insisting that sometimes the rationality of science or history could be wrong (Dei Fililus 4.6).
Vatican I essentially rejected any attempt to turn theology into a binary choice between Fideism and Rationalism. It positioned theology on a trinary model, with orthodoxy sitting between the extremes of Rationalism and Fideism.
Modernism was a form of Rationalism, insisting that the Church must always be adjusted to fit with science and history. To the extent that Pius X framed Catholic orthodoxy as a direct opposition to Rationalistic Modernism, then he ran the risk of reverting theology into a binary model, and thus aligning Catholic theology with the Fideism which opposes Rationalism.
This was the choice facing Popes Pius XI and Pius XII. They could ignore science and history and refuse to change Church teaching, but that would have made Church teaching irrational, and hence Fideistic.
So, to avoid Fideism, they accepted the findings of science and history and changed Church teaching. Does that make them Modernists?
No serious scholar suggests that Popes Pius XI and Pius XII were Modernists. So, to the extent that their actions could (accidentally) look like Modernism, that raises the question whether Pius X has defined Modernism precisely enough.
6. Vatican II’s Position
By the time of Vatican II (1962), there had been fifty years of the Modernist Crisis. But the problem would not go away. Many of those accused of Modernism said that they were unfairly accused. They claimed that they were accidentally looking like Modernists (like Pius XI and Pius XII) because of a problem in how Modernism was defined and understood.
When Vatican II opened, no one wanted the arguments over Modernism to dominate the floor of the Council. It was clear that the previous approaches of oaths, censures and condemnations had not worked, so Vatican II approached the issues very differently.
The Council launched with a focus upon aggiornamento, as it realized that part of the problem was the mindset and theological culture which was reluctant to consider that science or history had anything to teach theology. Thus the Council also rejected all the preparatory work. It was a sign that people needed to be willing to think differently, if the Church was to get out of the binary rut of Modernism vs. Anti-Modernism.
Using definitions and theological precision had not solved the problem of Modernism in the preceding fifty years, so the Council took the opposite approach. It insisted that it was a pastoral council and it avoided definitions.
At the heart of its theological solution was an insistence that the Church can always grow in its understanding of doctrine (Dei Verbum 8). And there is a very real difference between unchangeable dogma and other Church teachings (Lumen Gentium 25). So, as Gaudium et Spes put it:
The… findings of science, history and philosophy raise new questions which… demand new theological investigations… Theologians… are invited to seek continually for more suitable ways of communicating doctrine… for the deposit of Faith or the truths are one thing and the manner in which they are enunciated, in the same meaning and understanding, is another. (GS 62)
Vatican II rejected Modernism’s claim that Church teaching must always be changed by science or history, as there is an (unchangeable) “deposit of faith.”
But it also rejected an interpretation of Pius X’s Anti-Modernism which would say that Church teaching can never be changed by science of history, as theologians can find “more suitable ways of communicating doctrine.”
Without addressing the question of Modernism explicitly, Vatican II moved the Church forward and arguably saved it from a theological disaster. (See “Modernism: Did Vatican II Save the Church From Disaster?”)
7. Conclusion
Vatican II did not comment explicitly on Pius X or Modernism, so it would be odd to say that it changed Pope Pius X’s condemnation of it.
Vatican II changed a mindset, and it added nuance to the previously irresolvable disputes between Modernists and Anti-Modernists. It recognized that the central claims of Modernism are wrong. But it also recognized that there is a grey area between Modernism and Anti-Modernism, where science and history can indeed change Church teaching, as the actions of Popes Pius XI and Pius XII showed.
This has enabled the mainstream Church to move forward, avoiding the theological disaster of rejecting Modernism only at the cost of falling into its binary opposite: Fideism.
Instead, Vatican II repositioned Catholic theology back on the trinary model set out by Vatican I. Orthodoxy is not Rationalism, Liberalism or Modernism, but nor is it Irrationalism, Fideism or Traditionalism. Vatican II’s vision is for a Christianity which is a via media, sitting between all those extremes.
10 thoughts on “Did Vatican II Change Pius X’s Condemnation of Modernism?”
Modernism, stands as resolutely condemned today as it did when St. Pope Pius X issued his decree in 1907. It remains in essence allegiance to the “spirit of the age”, as distinguished from The Holy Spirit which is eternal and unchanging.
I don’t find the examples of a change in Church teaching, cited by the author, to be particularly persuasive at least not based on the cited proof. The cited decree of the Council of Florence was directed to the Armenians and their unique position in the Church. Based on the wording from the applicable section, there is no reason to suppose, from the decree itself, any broader application.
Regarding the Johannnine comma, there is no evident reason to presume a change in Church teaching which the author appears to do, since the explanation in Denzinger 3682 explains the context of the previous declaration in 3681. There is no reason to presume the Church submitted itself to the judgment of “science” and only thereafter changed its teaching. A full accompanying quote from Denzinger 3682 would have made that clear.
Yes, you are right: the issues can be read to imply that there was no change.
But they can also be read to suggest dogmatic change in the teaching of (infallible) Ecumenical Councils. Thus, Trent said that its contemporary vulgate (including the Johanine Comma) was inspired scripture. In 1927 Pius XI allowed the Comma to be queried. Florence extended an already accepted Latin definition of sacramental validity to the Arminians. Then in 1947 Pius XII changed the criteria of validity for Latins and Arminians.
The article suggests a perspective which sits between the opposite interpretations of no change vs change of dogma.
It notes a definite change in what the Church was saying in 1927 and 1947, and that the change was prompted by Science/History. But it wasn’t necessarily a (dogmatic) change of teaching. This is because Florence is ambiguous. And Trent said that all the parts of the Vulgate were inspired, but if the Johannine comma is a later interpolation then it was never an authentic ‘part,’ so it is arguable whether it falls within the scope of Trent’s comments.
So, thank you for adding this helpful insight which notes the complexity of the issues, and the possibility of alternative interpretations. Perhaps the issues raise a further question about whether queries concerning Church history and Tradition have a ‘right’ interpretation; and if so, is there a way for people to settle theological disagreements in order to access that interpretation (?).
Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
We are so far removed from Modernism, so far into humanity’s new and clarified version
of God and religion, that looking back, even to 1907, is so far into the red shift that even a Webb telescope could not define what the Johannine Comma Catch 22 was all about. Great research into the tangled world of primitive theology.
I agree, as usual with Rory this is a well organized and researched article.
Yes I think the amount of change in the last hundred years has made it very difficult for people to understand why modernism was such a problem in 1907. In fairness Science has also changed enormously since Einstein’s 1905 papers.
However, it is worth continuing to study “primitive” theology, as the issues have a tendency to recur. Fourth century Manichaeism came back as thirteenth century Albigensianism, and fourth century Arianism came back as sixteenth century Socinianism.
Good grief! Rory, you’re a learned guy.
“Vatican II did not comment explicitly on Pius X or Modernism, so it would be odd to say that it changed Pope Pius X’s condemnation of it.”
But that is how the Church operates. It hardly ever explicitly overrules itself. Instead it either doesn’t mention the old mistake at all, or if forced to, it says the teaching is being “clarified” or “developed”.
It is quite plain that Pius X’s statements on Modernism would never even have gotten a floor vote at Vatican II, let alone been approved.
Yes, there is often an interesting ‘politics’ at work in how organisations announce changes. It is not confined to Churches, as even the military can prefer a ‘tactical withdrawal’ to a ‘retreat.’ However, it is a fair question to ask when is a point being clarified, rather than developed. Even the Vatican sometimes struggles to explain the distinction, as can be seen in its 1989 document on how to interpret dogma – https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_1989_interpretazione-dogmi_en.html
Thanks but . . . it’s a hard slog going through those long documents written in “Vaticanese”. I compliment your patience and fortitude.