Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass

[Stone]

Dr. Carol Byrne: A Series on the History of the Dialogue Mass
Theological Errors of the Sillon
[Taken from here]

One of the earliest examples of a member of the clergy who criticized the Sillon on the grounds of unorthodoxy was Fr. Charles Maignen, a contemporary French priest noted for his opposition to all forms of Liberalism in the social teaching of the Church. After an in-depth investigation into this organization, he could not avoid the conclusion that the young members of the Sillon were driven by a relentless thirst for novelty: Rerum novarum cupido (to use the opening words of Leo XIII’s Encyclical), which led them to prefer a “dynamic” rather than a “static” theology. 1

Fr. Charles Maignen

These words are familiar to us now because they have been taken up by proponents of the New Theology and used to describe the “superiority” of the new, progressivist ideas over the traditional doctrine of the Church. Some years before Pius X condemned Modernism, Fr. Maignen warned that this trend would sound the death knell for Catholic Tradition:

“The Church had believed up to this point that the love of novelty was the greatest obstacle to the faith. The new theology has changed all that.” 2

He went on to point out that the situation regarding truth and falsehood had been turned on its head. In the new dispensation, Tradition was changed from a guarantor of the certainty of the truth to an evil to be avoided and even an enemy to be fought against. Suddenly, “it is the attachment to the tradition of the past, the obstinate refusal to follow the evolution of an idea” which, according to the modernist mind, would lead to “decay … in the order of religion.” 3

The full extent and harmful effects of this spirit of novelty in the Church were not, of course, as evident in 1902, when Fr. Maignen penned these lines, as they are today. But it does explain the otherwise incomprehensible antipathy towards Tradition evinced by the modern Hierarchy who have been influenced by Vatican II and its “dynamic” hermeneutics.

Interestingly, Romano Amerio has provided an illustration of this kind of thinking among the French Episcopate (heirs of the Sillon): in their 1983 Sunday Missal, prayers were requested “for the faithful who are tempted to become fixed in their certitudes.” 4 This was an obvious innuendo aimed at traditionalists.

The book by Fr. Maignen denouncing the Sillon

Sangnier applied “dynamic” hermeneutics in the construction of his ideal society to ensure the greatest measure of autonomy for each citizen:

“We call for a living tradition which is always on the move, an evolutionary force that never reverts to earlier positions; we want a hierarchy that is not exterior and symbolic but internal, each day becoming closer to the goal of unanimous acceptance.” 5

In this scheme of things, both Tradition and Hierarchy were simply abstract concepts. They would, however, play useful roles for the flourishing of his type of democracy: Tradition to help it put down roots and grow, the Hierarchy to give it stability and direction in the life of the Church. We can deduce from these ideas that Sangnier had no real respect for either Tradition or Hierarchy, but simply exploited their authoritative status as tools to further his own ambitions.

Most damningly of all, Fr. Maignen produced evidence that the Sillon, in its Review, Le Sillon, promoted the work of the chief proponent of Modernism, Fr. Alfred Loisy, and his theory of the evolution of doctrine; in the same issue, there was also an article on Fr. André de la Barre, SJ, who professed the same notion of dogmatic change. 6 (Both, incidentally, were Professors at the Catholic Institute of Paris). The following passage is quoted from of the May 25, 1899 issue of Le Sillon:

“Just as, in the world of nature, seeds incorporate into themselves the nutritive elements which they have drawn from the air and the earth around them, so the seeds of dogma need, in order to reach their full development, to seek in the surrounding milieu of philosophical or popular ideas whatever principles may be deemed compatible, and assimilate them.” 7

Fr. Maignen pinpointed the fundamental theological error in this passage which placed Revelation – the source of supernatural knowledge and life – on the same level as the natural, organic process of plant growth, without distinction of essence. This is an illustration of the modernist mind which cannot accept the validity of Truth coming from “above,” but insists solely on adapting whatever man-made theories can be found in the here-and-now, and which change with the exigencies of the times.

The author of the Sillon article, noted Fr. Maignen, went on to suggest that the novel concept of evolution should be incorporated into mainstream theological studies, of which the curriculum of seminaries would be the prime example.

Fr. Alfred Loisy, the main proponent of Modernism & inspirer of the Sillon

Another major departure from Catholic orthodoxy was published in a series of articles in the Sillon at the beginning of 1899. The articles were written by a young, pseudonymous seminarian (just four months into his studies and probably, therefore, still in his teens), who took it upon himself to stand in judgement on Leo XIII’s Encyclical Aeterni Patris which called for the revival of Scholastic theology and the study of St Thomas Aquinas.

In the pages of the Sillon, the seminarian discounted the value of Scholastic Theology, saying that it was of no value whatsoever as a tool of apologetics, on the spurious grounds that it would be incapable of convincing modern man.8 This was a flat contradiction of Pope Leo’s teaching that Scholasticism was the quintessential and indispensable model for theological studies precisely because the minds of even the most hardened sceptics, the most rebellious and obstinate spirits, would be bound (“nectendis mentibus”) to recognize its perfect harmony with reason.

It seems likely that the seminarian had not read the Encyclical for himself and was simply parroting the ideas of his modernist masters. Nonetheless, his direct contradiction of Leo XIII’s teaching, which represented the traditional Catholic perspective, can be described – without going so far as to accuse him of lèse-majesté – as an attack on the authority and dignity of the Sovereign Pontiff in his Magisterial Teaching Office.


To be continued


1. Charles Maignen, Nouveau Catholicisme et Nouveau Clergé (New Catholicism and New Clergy), Paris: Victor Retaux, 1902, p. 311.
2. Ibid., p. 303.
3. Ibid.
4. Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century, Angelus Press, 1996, p. 339, note 13.
5. M. Sangnier, L’Esprit Démocratique, p. 174.
6. André de la Barre, Vie du Dogme Catholique: Autorité – Évolution, Paris: Lethielleux, 1898, p. 178.
7. C. Maignen, op. cit., p. 314.
8. Ibid., p. 323.