Modernism--Encyclical Pascendi

PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X ON THE DOCTRINES OF THE MODERNISTS

To facilitate the reading of this encyclical, we will serialize into various separate parts, giving further explanations, clarifications, historical background and commentary wherever necessary.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE LATEST POSTINGS WILL BE FOUND AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE SO AS NOT DISTURB THE CHRONOLOGICAL FLOW OF THE ENCYCLICAL

THE LATEST PARAGRAPHS IS : §31-33 "Modernist Criticism and How It Works"
Scroll down to the bottom of the page

PART ONE
INTRODUCTION (§1 to §8)

EXPLANATION OF TERMS
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

MODERNISM (1890’s to our present day) — As the name implies, Modernism is an ideology (way of thinking) by which religious truths, and especially Catholic teachings, are created or interpreted in accordance with one’s own personal religious experience, and under the influence of the current spirit of the world.

Modernism did not just suddenly jump out of the blue and attack the Church, just as much as babies don't come out of the blue skies carried by a stork. In the same way as we can trace our ancestry back through time, so too can we trace heresies and spiritual diseases back through time. Everyone has parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on—we call it cause and effect. What then was the cause, or who were the parents, grandparents, etc., of Modernism?

Modernism was properly born in the late 19th century (1890's), but, to find its chief ancestors, we have to go back to what is now known as "Humanism"—which was born and reigned from around the 13th and 14th centuries (1200's and 1300's) in Northern Italy.

HUMANISM (1300's & 1400's +) — The term "Humanism" was freely applied to a variety of beliefs, methods, and philosophies that place central emphasis on the human side of the world. It glorified the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations with their focus on the human being and human sciences. Gradually, man began to replace God as the most interesting subject.

This meant that the words of man—philosophical reasoning on grammar, poetry, rhetoric, history, and moral philosophy—replaced the words of God—theology—as the main focal point of Humanists. This led to the enthronement of human reason as king and judge of all things—even over the things of God.

RATIONALISM (1500's to our present day) — Humanism, with its focus on man and all that he could with his mind and skills, gave birth to "Rationalism” which is the view that looks upon human reason as the chief source and test of all knowledge. This prideful over-confidence Rationalists’ confidence in human reason and proof, takes away respect for other ways of knowing―especially knowing through Faith.

In Ethics (morality), Rationalism says that human reason―rather than feeling, custom, or authority―has the ultimate right in judging good and bad, right and wrong.

In Religion, Rationalism says that all religious knowledge can only come through the use of human reason and the five senses― without the aid of supernatural revelation. Human reason, for the Rationalist, thus stands opposed to many of the religions of the world, including Christianity, because they claim that the Divine has revealed itself through inspired persons or writings and which have required, at times, that its claims be accepted as infallible, even when they do not agree with natural knowledge or cannot be explained and proved by human reason.

Rationalism seeks to explain everything in human terms. If something cannot be explained in human terms with human proofs, then it is to be doubted. Human reason begins to question Faith and accuse it of not having any proofs furnished by human reason, and that therefore it must a fallacy, or fable, or superstition. This kind of glorification of human reason paved the way for the Protestant Revolution against the Catholic Church and the Faith.

PROTESTANTISM (1520’s to our present day) — Essentially, Protestantism was an attitude that was infected with the disease of Rationalism. Whereas Rationalism would question everything in the universe, Protestantism would apply Rationalism to questioning the Faith and the protector of that Faith—the Catholic Church.

Protestantism took Rationalism and applied it to religion. Outside or external authorities were to be brought to trial in the Court of Human Reason. Personal or private interpretation replaced the authoritative teaching of the Church. Truth in religion is what I think it to be!

AGNOSTICISM — is the view that the truth of certain claims – especially metaphysical (meaning above and beyond the physical, hence abstract) and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

In the popular sense of the term, an “AGNOSTIC” is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God. An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing can be truly known and that nothing can be truly known of the existence or nature of God, or, for that matter, of anything beyond material phenomena. We can have feelings, opinions, theories, etc. but that is about as far as it goes. This is another child of Rationalism. Whereas an “ATHEIST” totally disbelieves in God and does not admit any possibility of God’s existence.

BACK TO MODERNISM ― which Pope St. Pius X call “the synthesis of all heresies”―is a melting pot of all the above errors. It focuses on man and the world. It glorifies human reason, especially in the field of the modern sciences. These sciences, based upon human reason, become the judges of Faith, revelation, and even God Himself. It creates its own truths and ultimately it creates its own religion, which we are seeing so clearly today—which also reminds us of the vision of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich.

BLESSED ANNE CATHERINE EMMERICH

VISIONS OF A NEW CHURCH
The Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824) was a German Augustinian nun of great sanctity. She endured a life of sufferings, bore the stigmata of our Lord and was a seer, who witnessed scenes from the life of Christ with the vividness of one who was there. She also foretold future occurrences in the Church. The following are from her visions pertaining to the emergence of a subversive Church of Darkness that would deceive many of the faithful into “complete decadence.”

March 22, 1820: “I saw very clearly the errors the aberrations an the countless sins of men. I saw the folly and the wickedness of their actions, against all truth and all reason. Priests were among them.”

April 12, 1820: “I had another vision of the great tribulation. It seems to me that a concession was demanded from the clergy which could not be granted. I saw many older priests, especially one, who wept bitterly. A few younger ones were also weeping. But others, and the lukewarm among them, readily did what was demanded. It was as if people were splitting into two camps.”

May 13, 1820: “I had a vision of two churches and two Popes and a variety of things, ancient and modern . I saw how harmful would be the consequences of this counterfeit church. I saw it increase; I saw heretics of all kinds flocking to the city (of Rome).

"I saw the ever-increasing lukewarmness of the clergy, and I saw a great darkness ever widening. And now the vision became more extended. I saw in all places Catholics oppressed, harassed, restricted, and deprived of their freedom. I saw many churches closed down, great miseries everywhere, wars and bloodshed. A wild and ignorant mob took violent action. But it did not last long.”

August 10, 1822: “I see the Holy Father in great distress. He lives in another palace and receives only a few to his presence. I see the dark counterfeit church gaining ground, I see its fatal influence on the public.”

April 22, 1823: “I saw that many pastors allowed themselves to be taken up with ideas that were dangerous to the Church. They were building a great, strange, and extravagant church. Everyone was to be admitted in it in order to be united and have equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics sects of every description. Such was to be the new church…But God had other designs…”

“I see that when the Second Coming of Christ approaches, a bad priest will do much harm to the Church. When the time of the reign of Antichrist is near, a false religion will appear, which will be opposed to the unity of God and His Church.

"This will cause the greatest schism the world has ever known. The nearer the time of the end, the more the darkness of Satan will spread on Earth, the greater will be the number of the children of corruption, and the number of the just will correspondingly diminish…”

“They built a large, singular, extravagant church which was to embrace all creeds with equal rights: Evangelicals, Catholics, and all denominations, a true communion of the unholy with one shepherd and one flock.

"There was to be a Pope, a salaried Pope, without possessions. All was made ready, many things finished; but, in place of an altar, were only abomination and desolation. Such was the new church to be, and it was for it that he had set fire to the old one; but God designed otherwise….”

“I came to the Church of Peter and Paul (Rome) and saw a dark world of distress, confusion, and corruption. I saw the fatal consequences of this counterfeit church: I saw it increase; I saw heretics of all kinds flocking to the city. I saw the ever-increasing tepidity of the clergy, the circle of darkness ever widening…”

September 12, 1820: “I saw a strange church being built against every rule…No angels were supervising the building operations. In that church, nothing came from high above…There was only division and chaos. It is probably a church of human creation, following the latest fashion, as well as the new heterodox Church of Rome [one world church of the False Prophet], which seems of the same kind…”

“I saw again the strange big church that was being built there (in Rome). There was nothing holy in it. I saw this just as I saw a movement led by Ecclesiastics to which contributed angels, saints and other Christians. But there (in the strange big church) all the work was being done mechanically (i.e., according to set rules and formula).

"Everything was being done, according to human reason. I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines, and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and violent about it, and they seemed to be very successful. I did not see a single Angel nor a single saint helping in the work.

"But far away in the background, I saw the seat of a cruel people armed with spears, and I saw a laughing figure which said: ‘Do build it as solid as you can; we will put it to the ground’.”

“I saw that many of the instruments in the new church, such as spears and darts, were meant to be used against the living Church. Everyone dragged in something different: clubs, rods, pumps, cudgels, puppets, mirrors, trumpets, horns bellows – all sorts of things.

"In the cave below (the sacristy) some people kneaded bread [the Holy Eucharist?], but nothing came of it; it would not rise.

"The men in the little mantles brought wood to the steps of the pulpit to make a fire. They puffed and blew and labored hard, but the fire would not burn. All they produced was smoke and fumes.

"Then they broke a hole in the roof and ran up a pipe, but the smoke would not rise, and the whole place became black and suffocating. Some blew the horns so violently that the tears streamed from their eyes.

"All in this church belonged to the Earth, and they returned to the Earth. All was dead, the work of human skill, a church of the latest style, a church of man’s invention like the new heterodox church in Rome.”

HOLY SCRIPTURE & THE LAST DAYS

“Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the Faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared” (1 Timothy 4:1-2).

“Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God! Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid!” (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

“When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red!’ And in the morning: ‘Today there will be a storm, for the sky is red and lowering!’ You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times?” (Matthew 16:2-3).

“Watch ye, therefore, praying at all times, that you may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that are to come, and to stand before the Son of man!” (Luke 21:36).

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: Why dig up old bones? Why not let sleeping dogs lie? Wasn't Modernism already dealt with in the time of Pope St. Pius X and then duly buried? If the death of Modernism would have actually taken place, then the Church today would be much safer, happier and holier. If it was killed (which was not the case) then it has risen from the dead. To quote G. K. Chesterton, “the corpse has apparently revived” and today reigns triumphant in that very same bosom of the Church, bolder and stronger than ever.

The Catholic Church was struck by the current crisis during the 1960's and 1970's. She wanted a face-lift in order to be more attractive and pleasing to the world, an aggiornamento as it was called at the time—an opening up of the doors and windows to the world—with Pope Paul VI eagerly standing on the "Welcome" mat. Yet the eagerly awaited bright new dawn and the Church’s Second Spring, with 'shoppers' bursting through the opened doors, never arrived. Instead many Catholics ran out of the Church through those open doors and windows, with few coming in. Their awaited new dawn broke on bitter shipwreck of disappointment.

In these crucial years after the Second Vatican Council, nation after nation shook off the yoke both of the Commandments and of Jesus Christ. Religious and priestly vocations plunged below survival levels and the shell-shocked faithful abandoned their parishes in favor of the most bizarre sects or simply to adore the god of their belly. Priests and religious abandoned their calling at a rate never seen hitherto. Bishops, the very guardians of the deposit of Faith and of the Church’s patrimony, began preaching―in place of the Gospel of Christ crucified ―a sugary sweet fake doctrine of brotherly love and social justice, while proposing to open a new dialogue with the Protestants. Rome became like an very elderly weak and impotent grandpa, seemingly unable or unwilling to reprimand or recall those in his family who have gone astray. The Second Vatican Council has in effect become year zero for the “New Catholic Church.” Indeed, post-conciliar popes seldom if ever cite pontifical texts written before the Council, basing all of their teaching and reforms on the new doctrine of Vatican II ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical opens as follows:

To the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See. Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

§1. The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord's flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the Faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking "men speaking perverse things" (Acts 20:30), "vain talkers and seducers" (Titus 1:10), "erring and driving into error" (2 Timothy 3:13).

Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days [1] increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself. Wherefore We may no longer be silent, [2] lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office.

[COMMENT 1 : "...in these last days..." : Pope St. Pius X does not hesitate in saying that we have entered the last days of the world. How much more advanced has that not become by our present day! ]

[COMMENT 2 : "We may no longer be silent" : Our Lady of Good Success warned of those who should speak out, but who fearfully keep silence: "...in this supreme moment of need of the Church, those who should speak will fall silent!" ]

The Gravity of the Situation

§2. That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart [3] , and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity [4] , nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church [5] , lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology [6] , nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church [7] , and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church [8] ; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man [9].

[COMMENT 3 : This is "one-in-the-eye" for those who laugh at conspiracy theories. Pope St. Pius clearly states that these enemies of the Church are deliberately hiding within the Church, seeking to damage and destroy her].

[COMMENT 4 : Both laity and clergy are guilty of this subterfuge and conspiracy. You are watching and listening to them in the pulpits and sitting next to them in the pews!]

[COMMENT 5 : "feigning a love for the Church" The infiltration tactics of subversives, will demand that the infiltrators become among the best in their field. The best bishops, the best priests, the best religious, the best lay people--until the time comes to call them out of their "dormancy" or hiding place. This is akin to the Communist tactics of infiltration, as explained by one of the English Communist leaders, Douglas Hyde, who converted to the Faith in the 1940's, who said that Communists infiltrators are told to become the best at their trade―bishops, priests, professors, politicians, doctors, scientists―and to win the confidence and trust of all around them, cf. Hyde's book, Dedication and Leadership]

[COMMENT 6 : "protection of philosophy and theology" This means that at a time of attack, on the level of ideas, our knowledge, thoughts, ideas and arguments have to sharpened, for they are the two-edged swords of the Word of God, that Holy Scripture speaks of. There is no room today for intellectual laziness. We must study and learn in order to fight on the level of ideas]

[COMMENT 7 : "poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church" This means not only Protestant ideas, but also the subjecting Faith to the approval and judgment of modern science. This is like parents being judged by their five year old child! ]

[COMMENT 8 : "reformers of the Church" This comes hanging onto the coat-tails of Modernism, which advocates constant change and adaption to the culture and life of the world. They call this change a reformation. That is what Protestantism called itself too--a Reformation!]

[COMMENT 9 : "reduce the Redeemer to a mere man" This is work of Modernism and its "pappy" and "grandpappy" Rationalism and Protestantism. ]

§3. Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can justly be surprised that We number such men among the enemies of the Church, if, leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge, he is acquainted with their tenets, their manner of speech, their conduct. Nor indeed will he err in accounting them the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without, but from within; hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of her [10].

[COMMENT 10 : We are sometimes too trusting and too peace-loving for our own good. Did not Our Lord speak of wolves in sheeps' clothing: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15) ? Did Our Lord not say that families would be divided over the Faith and that one family member would betray another family member: “Do not think that I came to send peace upon Earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s enemies shall be they of his own household ... And the brother shall betray his brother unto death, and the father his son; and children shall rise up against the parents, and shall work their death” (Matthew 10:34-36; Mark 13:12). ]

Moreover they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the Faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt.

Further, none is more skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance.

To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest morality. Finally, and this almost destroys all hope of cure, their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.

Once indeed We had hopes of recalling them to a better sense, and to this end we first of all showed them kindness as Our children, then we treated them with severity, and at last We have had recourse, though with great reluctance, to public reproof. But you know, Venerable Brethren, how fruitless has been Our action. They bowed their head for a moment, but it was soon uplifted more arrogantly than ever. If it were a matter which concerned them alone, We might perhaps have overlooked it: but the security of the Catholic name is at stake. Wherefore, as to maintain it longer would be a crime, We must now break silence, in order to expose, before the whole Church, in their true colors, those men who have assumed this evil disguise.

The Division of the Encyclical

§4. But since the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in reality firm and steadfast [11] , it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out the connection between them, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil.

[ COMMENT 11 : "doctrines without order and systematic arrangement ... scattered and disjointed ... to appear to be in doubt and uncertainlty, while they are in reality firm and steadfast" — Here we lying from the very beginning. A calculated tactic to fool the unsuspecting, or the "dumbed-down" into being accepting or at least unworried by these new "doctrines without order"—which are consequently hard to understand and thus hard to refute. They wrap all this up modern confusing terminology that frightens off most minds. ]

ANALYSIS OF MODERNIST TEACHING

§5. To proceed in an orderly manner in this recondite subject, it must first of all be noted that every Modernist sustains and comprises within himself many personalities; he is a philosopher, a believer, a theologian, a historian, a critic, an apologist, a reformer [12]. These roles must be clearly distinguished from one another by all who would accurately know their system and thoroughly comprehend the principles and the consequences of their doctrines.

[ COMMENT 12 : The Modernist of many masks! If one mask starts to slip, then recourse is had to one of the others. If someone comes to close to exposing them in one subject, they can cleverly change the subject and pick one of their other 'specialties'. ]

Agnosticism [13] is Modernism's Philosophical Foundation

[ COMMENT 13 : AGNOSTICISM — is the view that the truth of certain claims – especially metaphysical (meaning above and beyond the physical, hence abstract) and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable.

In the popular sense of the term, an “AGNOSTIC” is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in God. An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing can be truly known and that nothing can be truly known of the existence or nature of God, or, for that matter, of anything beyond material phenomena. We can have feelings, opinions, theories, etc. but that is about as far as it goes. This is another child of Rationalism. Whereas an “ATHEIST” totally disbelieves in God and does not admit any possibility of God’s existence. ]

§6. We begin, then, with the philosopher. Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is usually called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that are perceptible to the senses, and in the manner in which they are perceptible; it has no right and no power to transgress these limits.

Hence it is incapable of lifting itself up to God, and of recognizing His existence, even by means of visible things. From this it is inferred that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject.

Given these premises, all will readily perceive what becomes of Natural Theology, of the motives of credibility, of external revelation. The Modernists simply make away with them altogether; they include them in Intellectualism, which they call a ridiculous and long ago defunct system [14] .

[ COMMENT 14 : "human reason is confined to the phenomena perceived by the senses" — This shuts out the supernatural, the spiritual and the immaterial, neither of which the sense can perceive. God, revelation, the Faith, etc. are all unknowables to the human reason. Consequently, whatever you try teach me about God, I do not have to believe, unless it is provable by any natural phenomena. ]

Nor does the fact that the Church has formally condemned these portentous errors exercise the slightest restraint upon them. Yet the Vatican Council has defined, "If anyone says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made, let him be anathema" (De Revelatione, canon 1); and also: "If anyone says that it is not possible or not expedient that man be taught, through the medium of divine revelation, about God and the worship to be paid Him, let him be anathema" (De Revelatione, canon 2); and finally, "If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that, therefore, men should be drawn to the Faith only by their personal internal experience, or by private inspiration, let him be anathema" (De Fide, canon 3).

But how the Modernists make the transition from Agnosticism, which is a state of pure nescience (total absence of knowledge), to scientific and historic Atheism, which is a doctrine of positive denial; and consequently, by what legitimate process of reasoning, starting from ignorance as to whether God has in fact intervened in the history of the human race or not, they proceed, in their explanation of this history, to ignore God altogether, as if He really had not intervened, let him answer who can. [15]

[ COMMENT 15 : Here, in a very long and somewhat complicated sentence, the Pope is implying that the thinking process of the Modernists is totally confused and illogical―which at the same time is a deliberate tactic to throw people "off their scent", because who can argue and debate with an idiot? Their language is so confusing, they create new words that befuddle and intimidate a person into thinking that these Modernists and so clever and the normal Catholic is so dumb―so they decide to step into the background and "let those who know, get on with it", or they pretend that they understand the Modernist, and like a person who doesn't get the punch-line of a joke, just smiles or laughs as though he understood and just goes along with it! It is a little like the fairy tale of the King with the Invisible Suit of Clothes―everyone pretends that they can see the clothes ].

Yet it is a fixed and established principle among them that both science and history must be atheistic: and within their boundaries there is room for nothing but phenomena; God and all that is divine are utterly excluded. We shall soon see clearly what, according to this most absurd teaching, must be held touching the most sacred Person of Christ, what concerning the mysteries of His life and death, and of His Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven.

Vital Immanence [16]

[ COMMENT 16 : "Vital Immanence" is a term that can confuse and thus cause a loss of interest through lack of understanding and confusion. "Vital" comes from the Latin noun vita meaning "life". "Immanence" is based upon the Latin verb manere, meaning to "remain in". Vital immanence is a theory that believes that all divine things come from within us and not from external things like revelation. We are the source, nothing else. It is our religious sentiment that creates a need for a God. It is our religious sentiment that created a need for religion. It is all within us and creation of our needs, feelings and experiences. Hence, "Vital Immanence" is related to "Agnosticism" for they both are based on subjective or personal opinion that is guided by mere human reason alone, except that Vital Immanence has a narrower field of action, limiting itself to the interior and creating an interior world of its own.

An imperfect analogy would be saying that Agnosticism goes out into the world to work and meets many others, whereas Vital Immanence stays and home and just focuses on the interior. Or you could compare Agnosticism to a negative person who says: "I don't believe what anyone says anymore!" and then does nothing more. Vital Immanence could be compared to the person who says: "I don't believe anyone else, except myself" and then goes on to create its own personal subjective set of truth and beliefs.

The First Vatican Council already condemned such a subjective and rationalisitc notion almost 50 years before Pope St. Pius X, by the following canons:

● "If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema" (De Revelatione).

● "If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient, that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him : let him be anathema" (De Revelatione).

● "If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men and women ought to be moved to faith only by each one's internal experience or private inspiration: let him be anathema" (De Fide). ]

§7. However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernist: the positive side of it consists in what they call vital immanence. This is how they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation.

But when Natural theology has been destroyed, the road to revelation closed through the rejection of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside man himself. It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. Hence the principle of religious immanence is formulated.

Moreover, the first actuation, so to say, of every vital phenomenon, and religion, as has been said, belongs to this category, is due to a certain necessity or impulsion; but it has its origin, speaking more particularly of life, in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sentiment.

Therefore, since God is the object of religion, we must conclude that Faith, which is the basis and the foundation of all religion, consists in a sentiment which originates from a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favorable circumstances, cannot, of itself, appertain to the domain of consciousness; it is at first latent within the consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its roots lies hidden and undetected. [17]

[ COMMENT 17 : In other words, Faith is something that I make-up in order to fill a void, an emptiness, a need within me. I create all the missing pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I cannot figure out how or why something exists or happens, so I create in my mind an invisible God and attribute it all to him. ]

Should anyone ask how it is that this need of the divine, which man experiences within himself, grows up into a religion, the Modernists reply thus: Science and history, they say, are confined within two limits, the one external, namely, the visible world, the other internal, which is consciousness. When one or other of these boundaries has been reached, there can be no further progress, for beyond is the unknowable.

In presence of this unknowable―whether it is outside man and beyond the visible world of nature, or whether it is hidden within in the subconsciousness―the need of the divine, according to the principles of Fideism [18] , excites in a soul with a propensity towards religion a certain special sentiment, without any previous advertence of the mind: and this sentiment possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the reality of the divine, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sentiment to which Modernists give the name of Faith, and this it is which they consider the beginning of religion.

[ COMMENT 18 : FIDEISM is the doctrine that knowledge depends on faith or revelation. The term itself derives from fides, the Latin word for "faith", and can be literally translated as "faith-ism". Fideism is an exaggeration of how we can know truth and holds that Faith is, in some sense, independent of, if not outright opposed towards reason. The true Catholic principle is that Faith is not opposed to reason, even though there are some matters of Faith that are above the comprehension of human reason. The mind of an adult is essentially the same as the mind of a ten-year old child, but because the adult knows things way above the level of a ten-year old child, does not make that superior knowledge false or untrue. The adult's mind is not opposed to the ten-year old's, but is merely far superior to it. Therefore, in case of an apparent conflict or disagreement, the mind of the ten-year-old follows the truths from the mind of the adult, which are, as yet, incomprehensible to the two-year-old. ]

§8. But we have not yet come to the end of their philosophy, or, to speak more accurately, their folly. For Modernism finds in this sentiment, not Faith only, but with and in Faith, as they understand it, revelation, they say, abides. For what more can one require for revelation? Is not that religious sentiment, which is perceptible in the consciousness, revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? [19] Nay, is not God Himself, as He manifests Himself to the soul, indistinctly it is true, in this same religious sense, revelation? And they add: Since God is both the object and the cause of Faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and from God; that is, God is both the revealer and the revealed.

[ COMMENT 19 : "Religious sentiment is revelation or at least the beginning of revelation" ― You may recall the famous phrase of Descartes: "Cogito, ergo sum" meaning, "I think, therefore I am" or "The fact that I am able to think, must prove that I actually do exist". Similarly (and absurdly) we could apply this to Modernist, who could say: "I feel something! It must be a revelation!" Absurd? Yes! But only absurdity can try to oppose truth. ].

Hence, Venerable Brethren, springs that ridiculous proposition of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural [20] . Hence it is that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. Hence the law, according to which religious consciousness is given as the universal rule, to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and to which all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in its teaching capacity, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred liturgy or discipline.

[ COMMENT 20 : "every religion ... must be considered as both natural and supernatural" ― This is one of the foundations of the current false spirit of Ecumenism, which views all religions as capable of leading man to God and Heaven. These man-made (or devil-made) religions come from the interior consciousness and feelings of men. Since Agnosticism says that non-material, non-tangible, non-sensed, non-physical things cannot be measured, tested or verified are therefore possible but unknowable, then who am I to judge the feelings and experiences of others who have made their own religion around those feelings and experiences? That's where currently find ourselves, folks! God help us!]

PART TWO
SCROLL DOWN FOR PART THREE.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

HOW MODERNISM DETHRONES GOD

1. LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD by reducing everything down to the level of man. This means that nothing can be accepted with any certitude except that which can be SENSED by the five senses (see, hear, touch, taste, smell) and RATIONALIZED by the mind (that is to understood by the mind). If I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, touch it. If it makes no sense to me; if I can't understand it, then I cannot accept with any great certitude.

2. REDUCE CHRIST TO A MERE MAN. By being too rational about things, and not supernatural, the Modernist can then proceed to strip Christ of all that is divine. The miracles are explained as fabrications of popular opinion, that have been concocted or elaborated upon to satisfy a religious feeling or need within people. Those early, but misguided Christians, saw in Christ a good man and embellished a great many things about Him to satisfy their esteem of Him.

3. REDUCE HOLY SCRIPTURE TO MERE HISTORY and strip it of any divine inspiration. Make it out to be simple stories written by simple men to satisfy simple minds. Today, we no longer need simple stories, for we are complex men with complex and highly intelligent minds. Those old tales belong with children's fables. They served their purpose, like the morals behind Aesop's Fables, but we are past that infantile stage now!

DOGMAS & OTHER TEACHINGS

DOCTRINE: The word doctrine comes, by way of the Latin doctrina, from the Greek word doxa, meaning belief. The doctrine(s) of the Church, therefore, are those teachings which must be believed by the faithful.

These include (1) dogmas, teachings which the Church has solemnly defined as formally revealed by God, and, (2) other teachings definitively proposed by the Church because they are connected to solemnly defined teachings.

The first (dogmas) can be called doctrines of divine Faith, the second doctrines of Catholic Faith. Together they are said to be “of Divine and Catholic Faith.”

Both kinds of doctrine require the assent of Faith. Both are infallibly taught by the Church. Dogmas require it because they are formally revealed by God. Doctrines definitively proposed by the Church require it, because the infallibility of the Church in matters of Faith and morals is itself divinely revealed.

DOGMA: Dogmas, therefore, are those doctrines solemnly proposed by the Church as formally revealed in Scripture or Tradition. This may have been done by papal pronouncement (Pius IX: Immaculate Conception), by a General Council (Chalcedon: Christ is two natures in one Divine Person), or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (killing an innocent human being is gravely immoral).

DEFINITIVELY PROPOSED: Doctrines that are definitively proposed are no less certain, even though they are not proposed as formally revealed by God. They are connected to dogmas, however, by either historical or logical connection.

An example of logical necessity would be the reservation of priesthood to men in the witness of Scripture and Tradition. The Church has not yet taught that it was formally revealed by God, but such dogmatization is possible.

Papal infallibility was similarly infallibly taught by the Church before it was proposed as formally revealed by God.

An example of historical necessity would be the election of a Pope or the celebration of a General Council. While a portion of the Church could elect an antipope, or hold a false council, the Church as a whole could not err in this way without compromising Christ's revealed promise to be with the Church until the end of time.

INFALLIBLE: As noted above, all that the Church teaches as being of “Divine and Catholic Faith” is taught infallibly. Infallibility is not limited, therefore, to extraordinary acts of proposing dogmas, whether by popes or councils. Those looking to believe only such “infallible” statements deceive themselves.

In both the category of (1) divinely revealed and (2) definitively proposed doctrines, there are many which are taught only by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church.

This means that the Church has “always and everywhere” taught it as true, and, therefore, that the contrary position has never been taught.

Perhaps, the most debated example is contraception. At no time in history has the Church taught that contraception is morally licit. Whenever in the Fathers, Doctors or the Magisterium it has been discussed it has always been as an evil. There is no formal declaration, no extraordinary act, but it is certainly infallibly taught from the beginning of the Church until today.

AUTHORITATIVE: Finally, the Church teaches things which are neither proposed as formally revealed or definitively proposed. This is the category of authoritative teaching.

Anything in the Catechism or a Pope's writings and addresses that is not “of Divine and Catholic Faith” if clearly meant to take a position, without deciding it by proposing it as revealed or as definitive, is authoritatively taught. It should receive “religious obedience of intellect and will,” as opposed to the assent of Faith.

Such obedience is an act of justice. It shows the respect Catholics owe the Pope, and it humbly acknowledges that by charism and grace of vocation the Pope is more likely to be right than those who disagree with him. More weight would have to be given to something taught many times by successive popes than to something taught once by one Pope. Hence the importance of Tradition, which is like a chain of successive teachings going back into the annals of time.

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: In Part One of journey through Pope St. Pius X's encyclical against Modernism, after a brief introduction explaining the lay-out of the parts of his encyclical, the Pope paints a broad 'big-picture' of Modernism and its desire to totally overthrow the Kingdom of Christ by stages, and the many masks it uses in order to do so: "he is a philosopher, a believer, a theologian, a historian, a critic, an apologist, a reformer "

The Pope also pointed out that the Modernist, like the devilish serpent, is as slippery as an eel: "thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church." Reform equals change and the Modernists are perpetual changers or reformers. However, when you think about it, NOT ALL CHANGE IS GOOD. There can be change for the better and change for the worse. While the slippery eel Modernist hisses that all their changes are good, behind the hiss is the 'father of lies", the devil, who also hissed to Eve that eating the forbidden fruit would be a welcome change and a good thing to do! Eve learned the hard way! Likewise, there are fruits of the Faith that must not be touched, nor changed. We cannot start genetically modifying the fruits of the Faith. If we do, we, like Eve, will die the death! The Faith is currently dying because the Modernists have genetically modified the the Church's teachings. ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

Deformation of Religious History and the Consequences

§9. However, in all this process—from which, according to the Modernists, Faith and revelation spring—one point is to be particularly noted, for it is of capital importance on account of the historico-critical corollaries which are deduced from it [21]. For, the Unknowable they talk of, does not present itself to Faith as something solitary and isolated; but rather in close conjunction with some phenomenon, which, though it belongs to the realm of science and history, yet to some extent oversteps their bounds. Such a phenomenon may be an act of nature, containing, within itself, something mysterious; or it may be a man, whose character, actions and words cannot, apparently, be reconciled with the ordinary laws of history. Then Faith, attracted by the Unknowable which is united with the phenomenon, possesses itself of the whole phenomenon, and, as it were, permeates it with its own life [22].

[ COMMENT 21 : The historical-critical method of study remains on the purely natural, material, physical level of things and investigates the origins of a text and compares them to other texts written at the same time, before, or recently after the text in question. The Historical Critical method focuses on the sources of a document to determine who wrote it, when it was written, and where. What do we know of the author and his times? How was he influenced by them? What was his personal story? What other texts did he write and how do they compare what is before us? How does the writing we are studying compare to similar documents of the time? As such, the historical critical method focuses primarily, almost exclusively, on the human origins of a text. Of itself this is not wrong, but it is incomplete. The Scriptures are a document of Faith. They are inspired texts, with God the Holy Spirit as their ultimate author. Modernism wants to remain on a natural, not a supernatural, level. The writers of the Gospels were not the sources of the Gospels, they were ambassadors for the Holy Spirit—it is He who is the ultimate author.

There is a strong tendency within the historical-critical method to doubt the existence of the miracles recorded in Scripture. Not all scholars do this, but the more usual explanations of the miracles were that they were either literary devices, or just epic legends that were common of ancient near eastern and middle eastern texts. Furthermore, claims that Jesus made of His divinity were somehow to be understood as later additions, not something Jesus actually said. Many adherents of the historical critical method are also dismissive of St. John’s Gospel and tend to turn their nose up at most details there. They consider what they call “the Fourth Gospel” to be more theological reflection than actual history, hence it had little offer that they were not quite skeptical of—which is another brick of doubt in the building of Modernism ].

[ COMMENT 22 : Strongly linked to the previous comment on historico-critical studies of Scripture, is the Modernist explanation on how the Faith grows—which is a result of personal interpretation being placed upon things we cannot understand. In other words, Jesus did something that could not be explained by human reason, so human reason creates or fabricates something to be able to explain it.]

From this two things follow. The first is a sort of transfiguration of the phenomenon, by its elevation above its own true conditions, by which it becomes more adapted to that form of the divine which Faith will infuse into it. The second is a kind of disfigurement, which springs from the fact that Faith, which has made the phenomenon independent of the circumstances of place and time, attributes to it qualities which it has not; and this is true particularly of the phenomena of the past, and the older they are, the truer it is [23].

[ COMMENT 23 : This makes Faith a purely subjective thing, depending upon the whims and imagination of man. Fatih thus becomes reduced to a mere religious fairy tale, which satisfies our inner needs for something religious, out of the ordinary, etc. ]

From these two principles the Modernists deduce two laws, which, when united with a third, which they have already got from agnosticism, constitute the foundation of historical criticism. We will take an illustration from the Person of Christ. In the person of Christ, they say, science and history encounter nothing that is not human. Therefore, in virtue of the first canon deduced from agnosticism, whatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine, must be rejected.

Then, according to the second canon, the historical Person of Christ was transfigured by Faith; therefore everything that raises it above historical conditions must be removed. Lately, the third canon, which lays down that the person of Christ has been disfigured by Faith, requires that everything should be excluded, deeds and words and all else that is not in keeping with His character, circumstances and education, and with the place and time in which He lived. A strange style of reasoning, truly; but it is Modernist criticism [24].

[ COMMENT 24 : In simple terms, what the Pope is saying is this: The Christ that we imagine that we know today is an embellishment of our Faith. This is not the real Christ. Our imagination has disfigured Christ by exaggerations and imaginations. We have to realistic and strip Christ of all these imaginary trappings. This what not a few 'Catholic' clergy and teachers are presenting to us today. ]

§10. Therefore the religious sentiment, which through the agency of vital immanence emerges from the lurking places of the subconsciousness, is the germ of all religion, and the explanation of everything that has been or ever will be in any religion. The sentiment, which was at first only rudimentary and almost formless, gradually matured, under the influence of that mysterious principle from which it originated, with the progress of human life, of which, as has been said, it is a form.

This, then, is the origin of all religion, even supernatural religion; it is only a development of this religious sentiment. Nor is the Catholic religion an exception; it is quite on a level with the rest; for it was engendered, by the process of vital immanence, in the consciousness of Christ, who was a man of the choicest nature, whose like has never been, nor will be.

Those who hear these audacious, these sacrilegious assertions, are simply shocked! And yet, Venerable Brethren, these are not merely the foolish babblings of infidels. There are many Catholics, yea, and priests too, who say these things openly; and they boast that they are going to reform the Church by these ravings! There is no question now of the old error, by which a sort of right to the supernatural order was claimed for the human nature. We have gone far beyond that: we have reached the point when it is affirmed that our most holy religion, in the man Christ as in us, emanated from nature spontaneously and entirely.

Than this there is surely nothing more destructive of the whole supernatural order. Wherefore the Vatican Council most justly decreed: "If anyone says that man cannot be raised by God to a knowledge and perfection which surpasses nature, but that he can and should, by his own efforts and by a constant development, attain finally to the possession of all truth and good, let him be anathema" (De Revelatione, canon 3).

The Origin of Dogmas

§11. So far, Venerable Brethren, there has been no mention of the intellect. Still it also, according to the teaching of the Modernists, has its part in the act of Faith. And it is of importance to see how. In that sentiment of which We have frequently spoken, since sentiment is not knowledge, God indeed presents Himself to man, but in a manner so confused and indistinct that He can hardly be perceived by the believer. It is therefore necessary that a ray of light should be cast upon this sentiment, so that God may be clearly distinguished and set apart from it. This is the task of the intellect, whose office it is to reflect and to analyze, and by means of which man first transforms into mental pictures the vital phenomena which arise within him, and then expresses them in words.

Hence the common saying of Modernists: that the religious man must ponder his Faith. The intellect, then, encountering this sentiment directs itself upon it, and produces in it a work resembling that of a painter who restores and gives new life to a picture that has perished with age. The simile is that of one of the leaders of Modernism. The operation of the intellect in this work is a double one: first by a natural and spontaneous act it expresses its concept in a simple, ordinary statement; then, on reflection and deeper consideration, or, as they say, by elaborating its thought, it expresses the idea in secondary propositions, which are derived from the first, but are more perfect and distinct. These secondary propositions, if they finally receive the approval of the supreme Magisterium of the Church, constitute dogma.

§12. Thus, We have reached one of the principal points in the Modernists' system, namely the origin and the nature of dogma. For they place the origin of dogma in those primitive and simple formulae, which, under a certain aspect, are necessary to Faith; for revelation, to be truly such, requires the clear manifestation of God in the consciousness. But dogma itself they apparently hold, is contained in the secondary formulae.

To ascertain the nature of dogma, we must first find the relation which exists between the religious formulas and the religious sentiment. This will be readily perceived by him who realizes that these formulas have no other purpose than to furnish the believer with a means of giving an account of his Faith to himself. These formulas therefore stand midway between the believer and his Faith; in their relation to the Faith, they are the inadequate expression of its object, and are usually called symbols; in their relation to the believer, they are mere instruments

PART THREE
SCROLL DOWN FOR PART FOUR.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

EVOLUTION COMES TO TOWN

The centuries-old conflict between science and religion had been sharpened in the nineteenth century by the publication of two books by Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871).

During the final quarter of the century one of the favorite topics of discussion in the journals and on lecture platforms; while, in the pulpit, came the question of the relation between religion and science—could a reconciliation between the two be effected, or were they, as some affirmed, irreconcilably opposed in a battle to the death?

While some fundamentalists rejected, repudiated and renounced scientific investigation and Biblical criticism, demanding a literal interpretation of scripture, some modernists attempted a reconciliation between the new knowledge and the old faith by adapting Christian teachings and principles to rapidly changing world-views.

Darwin spent most of the later part of his life attempting to explain design in nature without the need for any purpose or a guiding intelligence. He labeled himself an agnostic, and gave us his "Religious Belief" in his Autobiography, written in 1876 when he was 67. As we saw in Part One of Pascendi, Agnosticism is one of the foundations behind Modernism.

Darwin asserted that different species originated by the extremely slow process of evolution. However, he knew that Genesis taught that God had created plants, animals and man by separate sudden commands. Both premises could not be true. So either his theory or Genesis was in error. Which? He wrote:

"I had gradually come, by this time [he writes this in January of 1839, when he was 29], to see that the Old Testament, from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus, or the beliefs of any barbarian."

Concerning "the miracles with which Christianity is supported", Darwin wrote,

"The more we know of the fixed laws of nature, the more incredible do miracles become—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us—that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events—that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses — by such reflections as these … I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation."

This is pretty much in line with the mindset of Modernists, who hold in doubt traditional views and explanations on divine revelation, and state that revelation comes from within us, it evolves with our experiences and feelings.

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: In Part One and Part Two of journey through Pope St. Pius X's encyclical against Modernism, after a brief introduction explaining the lay-out of the parts of his encyclical, the Pope paints a broad 'big-picture' of Modernism and its desire to totally overthrow the Kingdom of Christ by stages, and the many masks it uses in order to do so: "he is a philosopher, a believer, a theologian, a historian, a critic, an apologist, a reformer "

The Pope also pointed out that the Modernist "vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church." Reform equals change and the Modernists are perpetual changers or reformers. However, when you think about it, NOT ALL CHANGE IS GOOD. There can be change for the better and change for the worse. One of the areas of change was on the historical level, History was given so much importance that it overshadows the spiritual and the supernatural. By cleverly using historical study, they force a focus on the historical side of Christ and the Faith, and gradually purge it of the divine. The same would apply to the way it would deal with dogmas. The Modernist hates the true idea of dogmas — for dogmas cannot change, but the Modernist is always wanting to change things, he lives for change! ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

The Evolution of Dogmas

§13. Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they [dogmas] express absolute truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sentiment in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sentiment. But the object of the religious sentiment, since it embraces that absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner, he who believes may pass through different phases. [25]

[ COMMENT 25 : The Pope says that Modernists state that dogmas "must be adapted to the religious sentiment (feelings) in its relation to man ... and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sentiment (feelings) ... [and] possesses an infinite variety of aspects which ... may pass through different phases". All of this gushes forth evolution—"adapted" ... "infinite variety of aspects" ... "pass through different phases" etc. Modernism relegated Theology and elevated Science. Evolution was one of the most popular and intriguing scientific debates of the day. A Faith based on science, rather than Theology, will become a Faith based on evolution, a Faith of change, a Faith that goes through various different ever-changing phases. ]

Consequently, the formulae too, which we call dogmas, must be subject to these vicissitudes [changes], and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of sophisms [false reasonings] this, that ruins and destroys all religion. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed.

This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles. For amongst the chief points of their teaching is this, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence [ Vital immanence is a theory that believes that all divine things comes from within us and not from external things like revelation ] ; that religious formulas, to be really religious and not merely theological speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sentiment. This is not to be understood in the sense that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be made for the religious sentiment; it has no more to do with their origin than with number or quality; what is necessary is that the religious sentiment, with some modification when necessary, should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which spring the secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. [26]

[ COMMENT 26 : This paragraph may seem a little vague and hard to grasp, but what the Pope is saying is that Modernists cannot tolerate unchanging dogmas. For them a dogma has to be like a child, so to speak, who grows and changes. It is incomprehensible for them that a dogma should not grow and change—they look upon like a child that grows no further and becomes a dwarf! Change is good, no change is bad. Furthermore, the dogma has to be at the service of man and ruled by man's mind and heart. If the dogma becomes of little or no more us to man, then it must be changed in a way that makes it useful. Man is no longer subject to dogmas, but dogmas are made to be subject to man. ]

Hence it comes that these formulas, to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the Faith and to him who believes. Wherefore if, for any reason, this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly must be changed. And since the character and lot of dogmatic formulas is so precarious, there is no room for surprise that Modernists regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect. And so they audaciously charge the Church both with taking the wrong road from inability to distinguish the religious and moral sense of formulas from their surface meaning, and with clinging tenaciously and vainly to meaningless formulas whilst religion is allowed to go to ruin.

Blind that they are, and leaders of the blind, inflated with a boastful science, they have reached that pitch of folly where they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true nature of the religious sentiment; with that new system of theirs they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can rest and maintain truth itself.

PART FOUR
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR PART FIVE.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

TRUE & FALSE ECUMENISM

The Catholic Church in its Magisterium has condemned the meetings and initiatives that are not founded on the unity of faith, by the bond of which “the disciples of Christ must be united principally.” The law of Faith is absolute, because without “the teachings of Christ whole and uncorrupted,” without “one law of belief and one faith of Christians” there would be neither unity in the Church, nor true charity (Mortalium animos, January 6th, 1928),.

The Protestant vision according to which the Church should be divided into distinct and individual communities, as are the Orthodox, ignores the true nature of the Church, a supernatural society founded by God and recognizable by its four marks: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, as affirmed in the Apostles’ Creed. None of these marks can be separated from the others: “It follows that the Church, which is Catholic in truth and in name, must also distinguish itself by the prerogative of unity, sanctity and apostolic succession” (Denzinger 2888).

Therefore “the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it” (Mortalium animos, January 6th, 1928). Such is true Catholic ecumenism.

Archbishop Sheen, back in the 1930's, wrote in his book Moods and Truths:

“The Catholic Church intolerant.” That simple thought, like a yellow-fever sign, is supposed to be the one solid reason which should frighten away anyone who might be contemplating knocking at the portals of the Church for entrance, or for a crumb of the Bread of Life.

“When proof for this statement is asked, it is retorted that the Church is intolerant because of its self-complacency and smug satisfaction as the unique interpreter of the thoughts of Christ. Its narrow-mindedness is supposed to be revealed in its unwillingness to cooperate effectively with other Christian bodies that are working for the union of churches. Within the last ten years, two great world conferences on religion have been held, in which every great religion except the Catholic participated. The Catholic Church was invited to attend and discuss the two important subjects of doctrine and ministry, but she refused the invitation.

“That is not all. Even in our own country she has refused to lend a helping hand in the federating of those churches which decided it was better to throw dogmatic differences into the background, in order to serve better the religious needs of America. The other churches would give her a royal welcome, but she will not come. She will not cooperate! She will not conform! And she will not conform because she is too narrow-minded and intolerant! ...

“Such is, practically everyone will admit, a fair statement of the attitude the modern world bears to the Church. The charge of intolerance is not new. It was once directed against Our Blessed Lord Himself....”

A MORE MODERN TUNE

Pope Francis emphasized that from now on ecumenical dialogue is: “an essential dimension of the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, so that today the Petrine ministry cannot be fully understood without this openness to dialogue with all believers in Christ. We can say also that the journey of ecumenism has allowed us to come to a deeper understanding of the ministry of the Successor of Peter, and we must be confident that it will continue to do so in the future.”

From now on, along with other Christian denominations, the pope wants “us all to walk together fraternally on the road to unity.” The path “towards the reestablishment of full visible unity of all believers in Christ” requires only one thing:

“to journey together is already to be making unity. Unity will not come about as a miracle at the very end. Rather unity comes about in journeying, the Holy Ghost brings it during the journeying.”

So the Vicar of Christ on Earth has confirmed the “previously unthinkable” novelty of modern ecumenism, that has so profoundly impacted the very exercise of the ministry of Peter. Following the example of his immediate predecessors, Pope Francis has made ecumenical journeying--“A journey of unity and love”—and inter-Christian dialogue essential aspects of his apostolic duty, the Petrine service.

WHAT IS TRADITION?

In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or mythological accounts; nor does it encompass transitory customs or practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even liturgical rubrics.

Sacred Tradition is the oral teaching of Jesus Christ handed down to His Apostles, who in turn handed it down to their disciples (the early Church Fathers), and then to the next generation, and then to the next and so down finally to us. These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.

How do we know this? Well, for almost 400 years there was no written New Testament to fall back on. All of the Apostles their successive disciples taught orally for the first 400 years. "Yes", you might say, "but didn't Paul, Peter, John, Luke, etc., write everything down in their Epistles and Gospels?"

Yes, they did, but St. John tells us: “This disciple who giveth testimony of these things [St. John refers to himself], and hath written these things; and we know that his testimony is true. But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if every one were to be written down, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written” (John 21:24-25).

Furthermore, none of these writings was widely available to geographically separated disciples and it wasn't part of "The Bible" until the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage put the 27 books of the New Testament together in 382 AD, 393 AD, and 397 AD. One community of Christians differed from others in the Epistles and Gospels they had in their possession. Remember that there was no printing press—if you wanted a copy, it had be written out slowly and carefully by hand.

At that time, it took on the mantle of infallible Scripture with the Old Testament. Interestingly, Protestants today accept this Catholic "Tradition" of these 27 books of the Bible being divinely inspired. Protestants also accept the Catholic Tradition of meeting on Sunday, rather than the Jewish custom of meeting on Saturday.

Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received" (1 Corinthians 15:3). The apostle praised those who followed Tradition: "Keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2).

The first Christians devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles (Acts 2:42) long before there was an entire New Testament written down and distributed. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, Apostolic Tradition, was authoritative.

The longer the Church exists, the longer Tradition stands firm. It is the measuring stick by which all later teachings are and have to be measured. Hence the importance of reading the writings of the Early Church Fathers, the early saints and the long line of popes from antiquity onwards.

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: In Parts One to Three in Pope St. Pius X's encyclical against Modernism, the Pope paints a broad 'big-picture' of Modernism and its desire to totally overthrow the Kingdom of Christ by stages, and the many masks it uses in order to do so: "he is a philosopher, a believer, a theologian, a historian, a critic, an apologist, a reformer "

The Pope states that Modernists are falsely pretending to be reformers. They "vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church." Change is the name of the game for Modernists, but it is not a change for the better, but for the worse.

The chief change or effect of Modernism is the elevation of human reason above divine revelation. If the human reason cannot understand some aspect of the Faith, then that aspect loses it certitude. If something cannot be proved according to human reason, then it loses credibility. This is how they have cast doubt after doubt upon one element after another in Holy Scripture and in Tradition. The result is that the Faith has been purged more and more of the divine, and replaced more and more by the rational. The supernatural, which cannot be sensed or measured by our senses and reason, is doubted and replaced by the natural, which can be sensed and measured by our senses and reason.

The same process is brought to bear upon the unchangeable dogmas of the Church. They are questioned, ridiculed and doubted. The Modernist argues that dogmas must develop and change and keep pace with the ever increasing scientific knowledge of mankind. Everything around us changes, our experiences change, our knowledge changes, our bodies change, the natural world is changing, so dogmas must develop and change likewise. ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

The Modernist as Believer: Individual Experience and Religious Certitude

§14. Thus far, Venerable Brethren, of the Modernist considered as Philosopher. Now if we proceed to consider him as Believer, seeking to know how the Believer, according to Modernism, is differentiated from the Philosopher, it must be observed that although the Philosopher recognizes, as the object of Faith, the divine reality, still this reality is not to be found but in the heart of the Believer, as being an object of sentiment and affirmation; and therefore confined within the sphere of phenomena; but as to whether it exists outside that sentiment and affirmation is a matter which in no way concerns this Philosopher. [27]

[ COMMENT 27 : "the divine reality is only to be found in the heart of the Believer, as an object of sentiment [feelings] and affirmation [I feel that God must must exist]; but the divine is confined within the sphere of phenomena [what I can see, hear, touch, taste, smell, measure and understand]; but as to whether the divine exists outside my sentiment and affirmation, in no way this Philosopher."

This is mere "navel-gazing" and subjective introspection. Yes, it is true that Jesus said: "The Kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21), but it is also all around you in objective reality. As Holy Scripture says: "The just man liveth by Faith [and not just by reason] ... For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all that detain the truth of God ... Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because, when they knew God, they have not glorified Him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:17-22).

Thus, we can come to a knowledge of the existence of God, not just interior feelings or religious sentiment, by observing and rationally deducing the existence of God by the real and visible things that are all around us. Natural Theology can easily testify to this. "Natural theology" is a program of inquiry into the existence and attributes of God without referring or appealing to any divine revelation. But Natural Theology can also deduce so much and no more. We need divine revelation to tell us more about God. For example, no amount of human reasoning could ever come up with the fact that there is a Holy Trinity, of three Persons in one God. We needed the revelation of Christ to tell us this.

As St. Augustine says, God became man in order to raise us up to His level. But the Modernist philosopher makes God like man and drags Him down and locks Him into a human rational level. A professor teaches students in the hope of raising the level of knowledge among his students. The students do not drag the professor down to their inferior life. ].

For the Modernist Believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the divine reality does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the Believer rests, they answer: In the experience of the individual. [28]

[ COMMENT 28 : This is basically pure subjectivism. God exists or the divine exists because I think so and I say so! Subjectivism is the only thing we have left once we reject outside authority as basis or a motive for belief. We first reject divine revelation as being uncertain and therefore doubtful and therefore lacking certitude and authority. Then we do the same thing with the opinions, claims and teachings of our fellow man. Which then leaves us isolated with our own little mind, which we will then believe blindly. Subjectivism! ]

On this head, the Modernists differ from the Rationalists, only to fall into the opinion of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. This is their manner of putting the question: In the religious sentiment [feelings], one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart, which puts man in immediate contact with the very reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God's existence and His action, both within and without man, as to excel greatly any scientific conviction. [29]

[ COMMENT 29 : First of all the Modernist believer bases himself on his own reasoning rather than the revelation of God. He puts his own thoughts and experiences and opinions above those of revelation by God. This is an inversion and subversion of true authority and true value of evidence. “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater” (1 John 5:9). Then, the Modernist makes a further mistake of reversing the order of true knowledge within himself, by placing the heart above the mind, or the will before the intellect, or feelings and instincts before right reason. ]

They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the rationalists, it arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state which is necessary to produce it. It is this experience which, when a person acquires it, makes him properly ad truly a believer [30].

[ COMMENT 30 : The experience of feelings or sentiments, surpasses all rational experience. We can detect this in human language too. They will often say: "I feel that this and that is such and such" or "I sense that..." or "I see that..." or "I get the impression that..." or "I imagine that..." instead of a more rational expression of "I think that..." or "I know that..." or "I understand that..." Today's world is more and more ruled by feelings, sentiments, impressions, imaginations.]

How far off we are here from Catholic teaching we have already seen in the decree of the [First] Vatican Council. We shall see later how, with such theories, added to the other errors already mentioned, the way is opened wide for atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this "doctrine of experience" united with the other "doctrine of symbolism", every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true.

What is to prevent such experiences from being met within every religion? In fact that they are to be found is asserted by not a few. [Every person in every religion has their own personal feelings, sentiments and experiences]. And with what right will Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? With what right can they claim true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true. [31] That they cannot feel otherwise is clear. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? It must be certainly on one of these two: either on account of the falsity of the religious sentiment or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind.

[COMMENT 31 : We see this as being particularly true today, with the Modernist popes making comments like: “Proselytism [conversion] is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us” (Pope Francis). See more on this false ecumenical or 'ecu-maniacal' spirit in the sidebar to the left. ]

Now the religious sentiment, although it may be more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sentiment and to the Believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth, because it is more living and that it deserves, with more reason, the name of Christian, because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. [32}

[ COMMENT 32 : Thus, the Catholic Faith is the "deluxe" model of salvation, it has more "bells and whistles" or more truths. But other religions have truths too! Therefore, they can lead a soul to salvation too—but not as comfortably and assuredly as the Catholic Faith, with its superabundance of truths. In simpler terms, you could say that salvation costs, let's say, $100,000. The Catholic earns way above that and is comfortably off in the Faith and the race for salvation. The non-Catholic barely makes the required $100,000 and salvation is tougher for him, but he still makes it! There you have the false spirit of ecumenism. ].

That these consequences flow from the premises will not seem unnatural to anybody. But what is amazing is that there are Catholics and priests who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they heap such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors, as to give rise to the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate.

Religious Experience and Tradition

§15. But this doctrine of experience is also under another aspect entirely contrary to Catholic truth. It is extended and applied to tradition, as hitherto understood by the Church, and destroys it. By the Modernists, tradition is understood as a communication to others, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula, of an original experience.

To this formula, in addition to its representative value, they attribute a species of suggestive efficacy which acts both in the person who believes, to stimulate the religious sentiment should it happen to have grown sluggish and to renew the experience once acquired, and in those who do not yet believe, to awake for the first time the religious sentiment in them and to produce the experience.

In this way is religious experience propagated among the peoples; and not merely among contemporaries by preaching, but among future generations, both by books and by oral transmission from one to another. Sometimes this communication of religious experience takes root and thrives, at other times it withers at once and dies. For the Modernists, to live is a proof of truth, since for them life and truth are one and the same thing. Hence again it is given to us to infer that all existing religions are equally true, for otherwise they would not live.

PART FIVE
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR PART SIX.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

FALSE OPPOSITION BETWEEN FAITH & REASON

Our culture often pits Faith against reason, as if the more Faith-filled you are, the less reasonable you are. Faith and reason, in the minds of so many people, are thought to be polar opposites, never to be combined, and never to be reconciled. In this way, our culture often offers us false alternatives: live either by Faith or by reason.

From a Catholic perspective, the truths of Faith and the truths of reason (including science) cannot in principle ever be opposed, because God is the ultimate source of divine revelation (which belongs to Faith). as well as the Creator of Nature (which is studied by philosophy and science). One should not, therefore, choose between Faith on the one hand and reason on the other, but rather one should seek to bring both Faith and reason into a more fruitful collaboration.

In a Catholic view, since Faith and reason are compatible, then science — which is just one among one particular kinds of reasoning — and the Catholic religion must also compatible. Nevertheless, it is a commonly held view that one must choose between science and Faith.

However, today there is the ever-increasing danger of falling into the error of placing Science above the Faith. This is equivalent to placing the authority of man above God. “If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater” (1 John 5:9).

There are many scientists, thinkers and rationalists today who are atheists or have agnostic or atheistic tendencies. For these kinds of persons, science can be a temptation and a toll to try "shoot-down" the Faith, which would then leave them free to think and live as they desire—which inevitably means sinfully—since all and any constraints and authority of the Faith and God are removed and 'disproved'. These scientists, thinkers and rationalists are not—if you pardon the pun—men of good faith and good will. They have already made up their minds on how they want to live, and then many use science to try and justify their faithlessness.

FIGHTING FOR THE FAITH

Too many have given-up, or are in the process of giving-up, the fight for the Faith. The Faith must strike back in this revolution of the sciences. But the Faith cannot strike back unless we enter the fight. The Faith is like a two-edged sword, but it needs a soldier to wield and use that sword. There are few soldiers left who have both the desire for the fight and the strength for the fight. Are you among them? St. Paul writes: “Fight the good fight of the Faith!”

Guns, swords, knives or fists won’t work! You need a strong Faith and a strong intellect. “For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two-edged sword” (Hebrews 4:12). “And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp two-edged sword; that with it he may strike the nations” (Apocalypse 19:15). Sharpen your two-edged sword of your Faith and your reason!

“Whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world: and this is the victory which overcometh the world, our Faith. Who is he that overcometh the world? He that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God!” (1 John 5:4-5). The Modernist and scientists aid and abet each other in questioning the divinity and miracles of Jesus. In doing so, they strive to strike a death-blow to the Faith. We must fight for our Faith! To fight for our Faith, we must be strong in the Faith! To be strong in the Faith we must learn more about the Faith and pray for a strong Faith—since it is under attack from so many different quarters and in so many subtle ways.

Sadly, today, the Faith of most of the Catholic world is gravely debilitated and weakened. One could almost say that their Faith is at an infantile level, with a specialist knowledge in perhaps one or a few areas. But on the whole, they could never really defend or promote the Faith in any kind of a logical or coherent manner. They would merely argue emotionally, bluster and get angry.

The solution would be serious reading, learning and memorizing—but that seems like too much hard work! So they just pray and keep quiet. St. Peter tells us that we should be able to give a reason and an account of the things that we believe -- “Being ready always to satisfy everyone that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you” (1 Peter 3:15) — but we all have our excuses for our intellectual sloth, which is one reason why the enemies of the Church are so successful in "dumbing-us-down." We want the results, without the painful and laborious work that has to precede it.

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: In Parts One to Four in Pope St. Pius X's encyclical against Modernism, the Pope has shown that the ultimate aim of Modernism is to totally overthrow the Kingdom of Christ by stages, bringing it down to the level of Rationalism and the supremacy of human reason. To do this, Modernists pretend to be reformers: they "vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church." If something is beyond or cannot be proved according to human reason, then it loses credibility. In this way they cast doubt after doubt upon one teaching after another in Holy Scripture and in Tradition. The result is that the Faith has been purged more and more of the divine, and replaced more and more by the rational. The external authority of the Faith— Holy Scripture and Tradition—is replaced by the authority of personal experiences and feelings. Thus the anchor is thrown overboard, and the ship begins to drift—eventually and inevitably drifting onto the rocks of error and shipwreck. ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

Faith and Science

§16. Having reached this point, Venerable Brethren, we have sufficient material in hand to enable us to see the relations which Modernists establish between Faith and science, including history also under the name of science. And in the first place it is to be held that the object of the one is quite extraneous to and separate from the object of the other. For Faith occupies itself solely with something which science declares to be unknowable for it. Hence each has a separate field assigned to it: science is entirely concerned with the reality of phenomena, into which Faith does not enter at all; Faith on the contrary concerns itself with the divine reality which is entirely unknown to science. Thus the conclusion is reached that there can never be any dissension between Faith and science, for if each keeps on its own ground they can never meet and therefore never be in contradiction. [33]

[ COMMENT 33 : This is like having a dual-personality or schizophrenia, whereby part of the person must live one kind of life, thinking one kind of way with regard to the world; and live a different way and think differently with regard to God and the Faith. Or compare it to a divorce in a family, or separation. This is how we arrive at the false idea of separation between Church and State. The State tells the Church to keep strictly within the boundaries of Faith and forbids it any interference in the matters of the State. "We shall agree to disagree" is the phrase that springs to mind. Yet both Church and State have the same "citizens", which therefore forces people into a kind of ideological and practical schizophrenia or "two-facedness" in relation to both Church and Sate. This loosely translates on an individual level to "Sunday Catholics" and "Weekday Worldlings" ]

And if it be objected that in the visible world there are some things which appertain to Faith, such as the human life of Christ, the Modernists reply by denying this. For though such things come within the category of phenomena, still in as far as they are lived by Faith and in the way already described have been by Faith transfigured and disfigured, they have been removed from the world of sense and translated to become material for the divine.

Hence, should it be further asked whether Christ has wrought real miracles, and made real prophecies, whether He rose truly from the dead and ascended into Heaven? The answer of agnostic science will be in the negative and the answer of Faith in the affirmative — yet there will not be, on that account, any conflict between them. For it will be denied by the philosopher as philosopher, speaking to philosophers and considering Christ only in His historical reality; and it will be affirmed by the speaker, speaking to believers and considering the life of Christ as lived again by the Faith and in the Faith. [34]

[ COMMENT 34 : This is Liberalism pure and simple. The Liberal seeks to fit in with and please whatever company he happens to find himself at any given time. The Liberal is person of many hats and many changes of clothing. Yet the bottom line is that the Liberal is a liar. Truth is one, yet the Liberal disregards truth and replaces it with a distorted, twisted, deformed 'truth' that adapts itself to the likes, preferences and goals of self and others. The Liberal will cover himself by saying one thing and its opposite; he will both affirm and deny; he will both agree and disagree; he will accept and not accept — thus he is very hard to nail down, because if he accused of saying one thing, he can point to his statement that said the opposite, and vice-versa. ]

Faith Subject to Science

§17. Yet, it would be a great mistake to suppose that, given these theories, one is authorized to believe that Faith and science are independent of one another. On the side of science, the independence is indeed complete, but it is quite different with regard to Faith, which is subject to science — not on one, but on three grounds. [35]

[ COMMENT 35 : Science is meant to be the servant of the Faith — "philosophy is the handmaid of theology" as they say. Yet here, with Modernists, we have the typical Satanic reversal of true values. Science usurps the throne and tells the Faith that, from now on, the Faith must be the handmaid of Science. ]

For in the first place it must be observed that in every religious fact, when you take away the divine reality and the experience of it which the believer possesses, everything else, and especially the religious formulas of it, belongs to the sphere of phenomena and therefore falls under the control of science. Let the believer leave the world if he will, but so long as he remains in it he must continue, whether he like it or not, to be subject to the laws, the observation, the judgments of science and of history.

Further, when it is said that God is the object of Faith alone, the statement refers only to the divine reality not to the idea of God. The latter also is subject to science which while it philosophizes in what is called the logical order soars also to the absolute and the ideal. It is therefore the right of philosophy and of science to form conclusions concerning the idea of God, to direct it in its evolution and to purify it of any extraneous elements which may become confused with it. Finally, man does not suffer a dualism to exist in him, and the believer therefore feels within him an impelling need so to harmonize Faith with science, that it may never oppose the general conception which science sets forth concerning the universe.

Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of Faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, Faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brothers, is in formal opposition with the teachings of Our Predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, but not to prescribe what is to be believed but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinize the depths of the mysteries of God but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and to them may be applied the words of another Predecessor of Ours, Gregory IX., addressed to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, inflated like bladders with the spirit of vanity, strive, by profane novelties, to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the sense of the heavenly pages . . .to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science . . . these, seduced by strange and eccentric doctrines, make the head of the tail and force the queen to serve the servant"

PART SIX
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR PART SEVEN.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

PASCENDI 'S SUMMARY OF MODERNIST TACTICS

► Feigning a love for the Church.

► Work to ruin the Church from within the Church.

► Pretend to be reformers of the Church.

► They play a double game: Rationalist & Catholic: "Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist."

► Audacity or boldness is their chief characteristic

► They are assiduous and ardent in their application to study every branch of learning in order to be the 'trusted' experts in every field.

► The Modernist is a philosopher, believer, theologian, historian, critic, apologist, reformer.

► They do not allow Faith or religion to intervene in either science or history, which must be atheistic or at least totally secular. Any suggestion of the divine in history must be rejected.

► They reduce Christ to being a simple, mere man.

► They question divine revelation, or mix it with human sentiments and feelings

► They cast doubt over incidents and teachings found in the Bible.

► The make Faith seem like a personal invention to satisfy a need for the supernatural.

► They shackle this 'immature' but allowable Faith to the more 'mature', more intelligent and more trustworthy findings and teachings of modern human knowledge (science in a very broad sense of the word)

► Dogmas are expressions of our understanding of the Faith, as our understanding changes, so too must
dogmas change to keep pace with our understanding.

► The State must be separated from the Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. Every Catholic, because he is also a citizen of the State, has the right and the duty to work for the common good in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself about the authority of the Church, without paying any heed to its wishes, its counsels, its orders.

► As Faith is to be subordinated to science, so too, in temporal matters, the Church must be subject to the State.

► It is part of their system that authority is to be stimulated but not dethroned, because it is necessary for them to remain within the ranks of the Church, in order that they may gradually transform the collective conscience to their way of thinking.

► Varying styles of attack are used upon those who seek to hold fast to the old authorities of Holy Scripture and Tradition. Depending upon who the target is, these attacks will take one or several of the various styles: mockery and ridicule, intellectual humiliation, putting then on a "guilt-trip", false reasoning, and such like tactics.

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: In Parts One to Five in Pope St. Pius X's encyclical against Modernism, the Pope has shown that the ultimate aim of Modernism is to totally overthrow the Kingdom of Christ by stages, bringing it down to the level of Rationalism and the supremacy of human reason—all under the disguise of "reform". The chief reform is the order of values. The goal is to overturn the traditional values and place reason above revelation, science above Faith, the natural above the supernatural, the material over the spiritual. If something is beyond or cannot be proved according to human reason, then it loses credibility. In this way they cast doubt after doubt upon one teaching after another in Holy Scripture and in Tradition. The result is that the Faith has been purged more and more of the divine, and replaced more and more by the rational. Today, science has become more believable than the Bible. Science merely tolerates the Faith, like an adult allowing a child to keep its favorite toy. The external authority of the Faith— Holy Scripture and Tradition—is replaced by the authority of personal experiences and feelings. Thus the anchor is thrown overboard, and the ship begins to drift—eventually and inevitably drifting onto the rocks of error and shipwreck. ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

The Methods of Modernists

§18. This becomes still clearer to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In the writings and addresses they seem not infrequently to advocate, now one doctrine, now another, so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. [36]

[ COMMENT 36 : If you can be "vague and doubtful" then you are not a clear and obvious target. When you see something in daylight, it is much clearer and more visible than it is in the darkness of the night, or even at dusk. If the Liberal and Modernist can be vague and not very clear about what he or she says, then it harder to "nail them down"—for they will claim to be misunderstood, misinterpreted, misrepresented—especially so if they have also stated the traditional doctrine of the Church while at the same time stating the contradictory. This means that they will greatly prefer to "speak out of both sides of their mouth"—to say one thing and also say, or at least imply, its opposite. Two-faced duplicity is an essential part of their armor and tactics. ]

But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and Faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist. [37]

[ COMMENT 37 : If the Modernist were to spout nothing but Modernism, very few would "buy into it". The required change would be too much, too shocking, too stressful—much like expecting a 12 year old to enter college or the university; or like expecting a person who never lifts weights to suddenly lift 200 pounds. Thus the Modernist has to employ the "frog in the heated pan of water" trick. Start out with 95% Tradition with 5% Modernism, and then gradually decrease the Tradition and increase the Modernism over many years, until you have reversed it to 5% Tradition and 95% Modernism. ]

When they write history, they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they write history, they pay no heed to the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between theological and pastoral exegesis and scientific and historical exegesis. [38]

[ COMMENT 38 : Again, this is part of the decompression of the Faith. Gradually accustom people to doing without the things they felt were indispensible in the past. Remove the old foundations of the Faith—which are Holy Scripture and Tradition (which included the Fathers and Councils)—and replace with modern foundations—which are the modern sciences, modern history and Modernist Councils and theologians. ]

So, too, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon Faith, when they treat of philosophy, history, criticism, feeling no horror at treading in the footsteps of Luther, they are wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines, or the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical Magisterium; and if they are rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. [39]

[ COMMENT 39 : Traditional Catholic doctrine is treated like an over-aged grandparent, who has little or no clue about modern technology, and does not keep up with the times. They are tolerated, but not consulted—because they are "out of touch with reality" and live in the past. Their time has been and gone! Now it is the time for the new generation and the old generation is relegated. ]

Lastly, guided by the theory that Faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly criticize the Church, because of Her sheer obstinacy in refusing to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, after having blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology, which shall follow the vagaries of their philosophers. [40]

[ COMMENT 40 : We see Pope Francis speaking along these lines, when he criticizes and condemns those are living in the past and who refuse to change. He labels them as inflexible Pharisees. In Florence, Italy, on November 10th, 2015, Pope Francis offered a sweeping summary of his vision for the Catholic Church, telling a gathering of Italian Catholics that the Church must be open to change while rejecting a “controlling, hard, and prescriptive” style. “It is not useful to search for solutions in conservatism or fundamentalism,” the pope said. “We are not living an era of change, but a change of era.” Christian doctrine, he added, “is not a closed system incapable of generating questions, doubts, queries, but it’s alive, and able to unsettle, animate … [Doctrine] has a face that isn’t rigid, a body that moves and develops, it has tender flesh: that of Jesus Christ.” ]

PART SEVEN
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR PART EIGHT

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

WHAT IS "IMMANENTISM"

Vital immanence is a theory that believes that all divine things comes from within us and not from external things like revelation.

"Vital Immanence" is a term that can confuse and thus cause a loss of interest through lack of understanding and confusion. "Vital" comes from the Latin noun vita meaning "life". "Immanence" is based upon the Latin verb manere, meaning to "remain in".

Vital immanence is a theory that believes that all divine things comes from within us and not from external things like revelation. We are the source, nothing else. It is our religious sentiment that creates a need for a God. It is our religious sentiment that created a need for religion. It is all within us and creation of our needs, feelings and experiences.

Hence, "Vital Immanence" is related to "Agnosticism" for they both are based on subjective or personal opinion that is guided by mere human reason alone, except that Vital Immanence has a narrower field of action, limiting itself to the interior and creating an interior world of its own.

An imperfect analogy would be saying that Agnosticism goes out into the world to work and meets many others, whereas Vital Immanence stays and home and just focuses on the interior.

Or you could compare Agnosticism to a negative person who says: "I don't believe what anyone says anymore!" and then does nothing more. Vital Immanence could be compared to the person who says: "I don't believe anyone else, except myself" and then goes on to create its own personal subjective set of truth and beliefs.

The First Vatican Council already condemned such a subjective and rationalisitc notion almost 50 years before Pope St. Pius X, by the following canons:

● "If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema" (De Revelatione).

● "If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient, that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him : let him be anathema" (De Revelatione).

● "If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men and women ought to be moved to faith only by each one's internal experience or private inspiration: let him be anathema" (De Fide). ]

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: In Parts One to Six in Pope St. Pius X's encyclical against Modernism, the Pope exposed the ultimate aim of Modernism to overthrow the Church and the Faith by stages, bringing al things divine down to the level of human reason and human judgment—all under the disguise of "reform". Science (all branches of human learning) is placed above Faith, the natural above the supernatural, the material over the spiritual. If something is beyond or cannot be proved according to human reason, then it loses credibility. Today we can see that the Faith has been purged more and more of the divine, and replaced more and more by the rational. Today, science has become more believable than the Bible and science merely tolerates the Faith.

The Pope then began to cover the methods of the Modernist destruction. Their aim is to be a "moving target" that is hard to shoot down. They are deliberately vague about things, or only partially say things, so that they can have the excuse of being misunderstood, misrepresented and misinterpreted. Additionally, they remain two-faced, mixing traditional teachings and values with modern teachings and values, gradually adding more and more of the modern, and taking away more and more of the traditional. This makes the gullible faithful comfortable, barely realizing that they are being changed. ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

The Modernist as Theologian: His Principles, Immanence and Symbolism

§19. And thus, Venerable Brethren, the road is open for us to study the Modernists in the theological arena — a difficult task, yet one that may be disposed of briefly. The end to be attained is the conciliation of Faith with science, always, however, saving the primacy of science over Faith. In this branch the Modernist theologian avails himself of exactly the same principles which we have seen employed by the Modernist philosopher, and applies them to the believer: the principles of immanence and symbolism. [41]

[ COMMENT 41 : The devil is always seeking to reverse the order of things created by God. Hence, he strives to make us put the natural before the supernatural; the body before the soul; concern for this life before a concern about the afterlife; placing earthly riches before heavenly riches; focusing more on earthly knowledge than knowledge of the Faith. Thus, the Modernist ideal and goal of placing science above Faith is easily understood. ]

The process is an extremely simple one. The philosopher has declared: "The principle of Faith is immanent"; the believer has added: "This principle is God"; and the theologian draws the conclusion: "God is immanent in man." [42] Thus we have theological immanence. So too, the philosopher regards as certain that the representations of the object of Faith are merely symbolical; the believer has affirmed that the object of Faith is God in Himself; and the theologian proceeds to affirm that: The representations of the divine reality are symbolical. And thus we have theological symbolism. Truly enormous errors both, the pernicious character of which will be seen clearly from an examination of their consequences.

[ COMMENT 42 : How it should read is: "The principle of Faith is outside of me" ... "The principle of Faith is God and Divine Revelation" ... "Therefore I need to listen to God and Divine Revelation" ― and not listen to myself! I must be objective and not subjective. God and His Divine Revelation is the external object that is trying to make me, the subject, conform to the object. I am not here to make God conform to me and my imaginations, impressions, sentiments, feelings and wishful thinking. I do not create truth, I listen to and follow a truth that is outside of me. ]

For, to begin with symbolism, since symbols are but symbols in regard to their objects and only instruments in regard to the believer, it is necessary first of all, according to the teachings of the Modernists, that the believer do not lay too much stress on the formula, but avail himself of it only with the scope of uniting himself to the absolute truth, which the formula, at one and the same time, reveals and conceals, that is to say, endeavors to express the truth, but without succeeding in doing so. The Modernists would also have the believer avail himself of the formulas only in as far as they are useful to him, for they are given to be a help and not a hindrance; with proper regard, however, for the social respect due to formulas, which the public Magisterium has deemed suitable for expressing the common consciousness, until such time as the same Magisterium provide otherwise. [43]

[ COMMENT 43 : This loosely translates into a tentative, temporary acceptance of Church teaching and dogmas, not in absolute sense, but in a passing way, and only in the degree that they are useful to me, here and now―for these teachings will evolve and change, and what was taught today, will no longer be taught tomorrow, or at least it will not be entirely the same tomorrow as it is today. This is slow and gradually evolution of truth that Modernists love so much. ]

Concerning immanence it is not easy to determine what Modernists mean by it, for their own opinions on the subject vary. Some understand it in the sense that God working in man is more intimately present in him than man is in even himself, and this conception, if properly understood, is free from reproach. Others hold that the divine action is one with the action of nature, as the action of the first cause is one with the action of the secondary cause, and this would destroy the supernatural order. Others, finally, explain it in a way which savors of pantheism and this, in truth, is the sense which tallies best with the rest of their doctrines. [44]

[ COMMENT 44 : Keep it fluid! Keep it vague! Keep it confusing! For then it cannot be attacked and "nailed"! When you have an imprecise, vague, confusing doctrine, then trying to "nail" it is like trying to nail jelly to water! Thus do not expect Modernists to speak clearly and absolutely. They will be full of distinctions, contradictions, exceptions, deflections, and distractions. ]

§20. With this principle of immanence is connected another principle, which may be called the principle of divine permanence. It differs from the first in much the same way as the private experience differs from the experience transmitted by tradition. An example will illustrate what is meant, and this example is offered by the Church and the Sacraments.

The Church and the Sacraments, they say, are not to be regarded as having been instituted by Christ Himself. This is forbidden by agnosticism, which sees in Christ nothing more than a man whose religious consciousness has been, like that of all men, formed by degrees; it is also forbidden by the law of immanence, which rejects what they call "external application"; it is further forbidden by the law of evolution, which requires, for the development of the germs, a certain time and a certain series of circumstances; it is, finally, forbidden by history, which shows that such in fact has been the course of things. [45]

[ COMMENT 45 : The Church traditionally holds that the Sacraments were instituted by Christ Himself. Modernism protests and calls in three false witnesses to make the accusations to the contrary. Agnosticism, alias the Doubter, says: "We cannot know that for certain! Perhaps He did, perhaps He didn't! We can't possibly know!" Then along comes Immanence, alias "I Have A Feeling", who says: "I don't have a feeling that Christ instituted the Sacraments. Perhaps someone else has that feeling, but I don't. So for me, it's not true!" Then along comes History, alias "Where Does It Say That", and says: "The Bible certainly says nothing about it! So I'm not buying it!" ]

Still it is to be held that both Church and Sacraments have been founded mediately by Christ. But how? In this way: All Christian consciences were, they affirm, in a manner virtually included in the conscience of Christ, as the plant is included in the seed. But as the shoots live the life of the seed, so, too, all Christians are to be said to live the life of Christ. But the life of Christ is according to Faith, and so, too, is the life of Christians. And since this life produced, in the courses of ages, both the Church and the Sacraments, it is quite right to say that their origin is from Christ and is divine. [46]

[ COMMENT 46 : In other words, we can say that the institution of the Sacraments came from Christ in a "round-about-way", just like some of the things we do can be traced back to our ancestors. We might use an expression like "This is the way our family has always done things!" Now, the way we do things has developed and evolved over the years. Each generation might have added something onto the overall way of doing things―yet it still belongs to the family name. So too will Modernists say that since we are Christians, we have the spirit of Christ, and if we invent Baptism, or Confirmation, then it is the spirit of Christ that has done this. Hence we can say that, in a round about way ("mediately" is the word the Pope uses), Christ established the Sacraments through his followers. ]

In the same way they prove that the Scriptures and the dogmas are divine. And thus the Modernistic theology may be said to be complete. No great thing, in truth, but more than enough for the theologian who professes that the conclusions of science must always, and in all things, be respected. The application of these theories to the other points We shall proceed to expound, anybody may easily make for himself.

PART EIGHT
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR PART NINE

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

WHAT IS CORRECT TEACHING ABOUT DOGMAS?

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: In Parts One to Seven in Pope St. Pius X's encyclical against Modernism, the Pope shows that Modernism seeks to overthrow the Church and the Faith gradual steps. Modernism, a child of Rationalism and Liberalism, works in the the field of religion and the Faith. It rejects divine authority as being unknowable and uncertain. It strives to reduce all things divine down to the level of human reason and human judgment—all under the disguise of "reform". Science (meaning all the branches of human learning) is placed above Faith, the natural above the supernatural, the material over the spiritual. If something is beyond or cannot be proved according to human reason, then it loses credibility. Today, science has become more believable than the Bible and science merely tolerates the Faith.

The Pope then showed some of the methods of the Modernist destruction. They are deliberately vague about things, or only partially say things, so that they can have the excuse of being misunderstood, misrepresented and misinterpreted. It hard to refute a vague argument. Another tactic, designed to throw you off the scent, is the mixing of traditional teachings and values with modern teachings and values, gradually adding more and more of the modern, and taking away more and more of the traditional. This makes the gullible faithful comfortable, barely realizing that they are being changed. ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

The Modernist's View of Dogmas and the Sacraments

(1) DOGMAS

§21. Thus far We have spoken of the origin and nature of Faith. But as Faith has many shoots, and chief among them the Church, dogma, worship, the Books which we call "Sacred," of these also we must know what is taught by the Modernists. To begin with dogma, we have already indicated its origin and nature. Dogma is born of the species of impulse or necessity, by virtue of which the believer is constrained to elaborate his religious thought, so as to render it clearer for himself and others. [47]

[ COMMENT 47 : Once again, this is pure subjectivism or personal opinion. Once you have rejected all external authorities, then you are left with only yourself. This is the plight of most of the world today. It is a world of "I think that ... I feel that ... I am inclined to believe that ... In my humble opinion .... etc. It is almost like coming up with your conclusion first, and then trying to find the evidence that will prove your imaginary conclusion to be true. Religion is not about dogma, but about sentimentality and feelings. For the Modernist, religion is essentially about what makes you feel good; if Christianity, or any other religion, is what makes you feel good and more in touch with the Divine, then it is true for you. In other words, religion does not consist of creeds or objective truth but of feelings. ]

This elaboration consists entirely in the process of penetrating and refining the primitive formula, not indeed in itself and according to logical development, but as required by circumstances, or "vitally" as the Modernists more abstrusely put it. Hence it happens that around the primitive formula, secondary formulas gradually continue to be formed, and these subsequently grouped into bodies of doctrine, or into "doctrinal constructions" as they prefer to call them, and further sanctioned by the public magisterium as responding to the common consciousness, are called "dogma". [48]

[ COMMENT 48 : The Modernist says that in previous centuries, the dogmas of the Faith, such as the dogmas of the Trinity, were true, but since dogma evolves, it may no longer be true today. For the Modernist, dogma evolves into whatever accommodates the needs of the current culture. This is refuted by the fact that the dogmas of the Faith are revealed by God, and God cannot contradict Himself. ]

Dogma is to be carefully distinguished from the speculations of theologians, which, although not alive with the life of dogma, are not without their utility as serving to harmonize religion with science and remove opposition between the two, in such a way as to throw light from without on religion, and it may be even to prepare the matter for future dogma. [49]

[ COMMENT 49 : This leads us into the problem of what in the Church today is called the "hermeneutic of continuity" ― a term which is interpreted differently by Modernists and Conservatives. Ever since the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the term "hermeneutic continuity" has been proposed as descriptive of an interpretation of the Second Vatican Council that stresses continuity between pre and post-Conciliar teachings. What exactly is the "hermeneutic of continuity"? There are two ways one can interpret what this means, and as we shall see, much is riding on which approach one prefers.

1) The teaching of the Second Vatican Council is already in perfect continuity with Tradition, and in proposing a hermeneutic of continuity, we are being asking to realize and appropriate this truth. The hermeneutic of continuity is simply recognizing what the Council "really taught" as opposed to what liberals drew out of it. In this interpretation, discontinuity is a myth that must be dispelled by proper catechesis.

2) The teaching of the Second Vatican Council presents a departure from Catholic Tradition, and in proposing for a hermeneutic of continuity, we are being asked to look for a way to reconcile Conciliar teaching with pre-Conciliar teaching. The hermeneutic of continuity consists in new statements or actions on the part of the Magisterium, bishops and priests to bring the Vatican II documents into synthesis with prior Magisterial teaching. In this interpretation, discontinuity is a fact that must be rectified.

The true notion of a "hermeneutic of continuity" is generally opposed to the Modernist "hermeneutic of cotinuity" which is more of a "hermeneutic of rupture", which sees Vatican II in terms of a break or rupture with tradition. This is the view that sees everything before Vatican II as obsolete. In other words, since doctrine evolves for the Modernist, the things that were true before Vatican II do not necessarily apply to the Church after Vatican II. For the Modernist, a new Church was created after Vatican II, and this Church has new truths that are not necessarily the same as those before Vatican II

(2) THE SACRAMENTS

Concerning worship, there would not be much to be said, were it not that under this head are comprised the Sacraments, concerning which the Modernists fall into the gravest errors. For them the Sacraments are the resultant of a double need ― for, as we have seen, everything in their system is explained by inner impulses or necessities. In the present case, the first need is that of giving some sensible manifestation to religion; the second is that of propagating it, which could not be done without some sensible form and consecrating acts, and these are called sacraments. [50]

[ COMMENT 50 : To put it very simply, perhaps too simply, the Sacraments are a kind of "kiss it and make feel better" kind of thing. When a child falls and hurts itself, then it is not uncommon for the child to run to the mother and plead: "Kiss it and make it feel better, mommy!" Not that the kiss heals the grazed knee, but it helps the anxiety in the child's mind that comes from the grazed knee. The mother's kiss is symbol that she cares, that she wants what is good for her child, that she is there for her child, etc.

Likewise, with the Modernist Sacraments, they are an outward expression of the inner religious feelings of the Modernist. The Sacraments do not symbolize an external objective reality (God and the grace that He gives), but an interior reality (my real feelings about religion and what I wish it would do for me).

For a true Catholic, the Sacraments are defined as: "An outward sign of an inward grace that is given to us by God through His Church and the rite of the Sacrament.".

But, for the Modernists, the Sacraments are mere symbols or signs, though not devoid of a certain efficacy ― an efficacy, they tell us, like that of certain phrases vulgarly described as having "caught on," inasmuch as they have become the vehicle for the diffusion of certain great ideas which strike the public mind. What the phrases are to the ideas, that the Sacraments are to the religious sentiment ― that and nothing more. The Modernists would be speaking more clearly were they to affirm that the Sacraments are instituted solely to foster the Faith ― but this is condemned by the Council of Trent: "If anyone say that these Sacraments are instituted solely to foster the Faith, let him be anathema." [51}

[ COMMENT 51 : In other words, the Sacraments are merely expressions of the religious feelings, the religious needs, the religious hopes and ideas of the Modernist believer. Like a painting portrays what was in the mind of the artist, or a song expresses what was in the mind of the musical composer, or poem reflects the thoughts and hopes of the poet, so too do the Sacraments convey the feelings, needs, hopes and sentiments of the believer. Additionally, as these feelings, needs, hopes and sentiments change, so too can one change the Sacraments to keep pace with them].

BELOW, YOU HAVE A LIST OF THE DEFINED DOGMAS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN PDF FORMAT

declared_dogmas_of_the_catholic_faith.pdf
File Size:	302 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

PART NINE
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR PART TEN.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

MODERNIST SCRIPTURE
versus
HOLY SCRIPTURE

For more than a century, Modernism, in a very concerted fashion, has gnawed at the vital organs of the Catholic Faith. Here are some of the traits of this insidious system:

Modernism rejects the biblical description of the nature of God. The God of the Old Testament is seen as a hateful deity of vengeance and is rejected. Modernist will reject Scriptural affirmations regarding God’s holiness and wrath and viewed the Lord solely as a being of love. This view overlooks the justice of God, failing to recognize that God will punish the rebel and the sinner. Pope Francis is the perfect practitioner of this method of approach.
Modernism attacks the Scriptural account of creation, suggesting that the Mosaic record is simply an ancient “myth”. It denies that man has fallen from his holy origins through Original Sin; rather, it asserts that humanity has actually evolved and risen from a brutish animalistic state (via the evolutionary process) to its current status. One Modernist declared that he was not embarrassed to confess that his grandfather was a monkey and his great-grandfather a tadpole.
Modernism adopts a “higher critical” attitude toward the Bible, which ignores the testimony of Scripture itself. For example, it is claimed that Moses did not author the Pentateuch, as both Old and New Testament evidence suggest; rather, supposedly, the first five books of the Bible are but a compilation of documents (e.g., J, E, P, D—the initials signifying Jehovah, Elohim, Priestly, and Deuteronomic—code names for the alleged authors).
Modernism contends that the Bible, as a historical record, is not trustworthy. Advocates of this viewpoint do not hesitate to assert that the Scriptures contain a host of errors of a considerable variety. They believe that the basis of the biblical record is an ancient legendary tradition.
Modernism, therefore, seeks to “de-mythologize” the Scriptures. Anything of a miraculous nature must be explained away as having some natural, though perhaps misunderstood, nature. According to this ideology, for example, Jesus did not walk upon the waves of the Sea of Galilee; instead, he was merely walking in the shallow surf near the coast, and the disciples, from a distance, just thought he was upon the surface of the sea.
Modernism asserts that human conduct cannot be regulated by a “rule book” such as the Bible. Instead, one must individually make his own decisions on ethical issues, letting subjective “love” be the guiding principle in various situations. This is the path being followed by the current Pope Francis, whose sole focus is on mercy and love, but not on sin, conversion, penance, and reparation.

There are additional modernistic traits that might be mentioned, but these will suffice for the present. It hardly needs to be pointed out that “modernism” is actually just another term for infidelity.

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: In Parts One to Eight Pope St. Pius X exposes the Modernist aim to change the Church and the Faith by gradual steps. Modernism, born of Rationalism and Liberalism, works in the the field of religion and the Faith, rejecting divine authority as being unknowable and uncertain, and replaces it with human reason and human judgment—all under the disguise of "reform". Science (meaning all the branches of human learning) is placed above Faith, the natural above the supernatural, the material over the spiritual.

The Modernists do their work in a deliberately vague and confused manner. They only partially say things, create a new obtuse and hard to understand terminology, so that they can have the excuse of being misunderstood, misrepresented and misinterpreted. It hard to refute a vague argument. To pull wool over the eyes of the true Catholic, they deliberately mix traditional teachings and values with modern teachings and values, gradually adding more and more of the modern, and taking away more and more of the traditional. This makes the gullible faithful comfortable, barely realizing that they are being changed.

Dogmas and Sacraments, for the Modernist, are neither objective unchangeable truths, nor real avenues of grace instituted by Christ. Dogmas and Sacraments are merely visible, audible, tangible expressions of the vague, inner religious sentiments and cravings of the believer. This their diet of cotton-candy or candy-floss, instead of traditional "meat" of the Church. ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

The Modernist's View of Dogmas and the Sacraments

THE MODERNIST AND THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

§22. We have already touched upon the nature and origin of the Sacred Books. According to the principles of the Modernists they may be rightly described as a collection of experiences, not indeed of the kind that may come to anybody, but those extraordinary and striking ones which have happened in any religion. And this is precisely what they teach about our books of the Old and New Testament. But, to suit their own theories, they note, with remarkable ingenuity that, although experience is something belonging to the present, still it may derive its material from the past and the future alike, inasmuch as the believer, by memory, lives the past over again, after the manner of the present, and lives the future already by anticipation.   [52]

[ COMMENT 52 : You have heard of the expression: "Truth is stranger than fiction!" Yet, in the case of the teachings of Modernism, we have to say: "Modernism is stranger than truth" or that "The truth of the traditional Catholic Church is easier to understand than the babblings of Modernist Catholics!" Once we throw away the anchor of legitimate authority in studying Holy Scripture, then we fall into the realm of believing anything. It was G.K. Chesterton who wrote: "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not, thereafter, believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything." When the Modernist refuses the authority of God, the traditional ancient Church, and classic exegetes of Holy Scripture, then they will believe their own wildest imaginations and fancies. ]

This explains how it is that the historical and apocalyptical books are included among the Sacred Writings. God does indeed speak in these books — through the medium of the believer, but only, according to Modernistic theology, by vital immanence and permanence. [53] Do we inquire concerning inspiration? Inspiration, they reply, is distinguished only by its vehemence from that impulse which stimulates the believer to reveal the Faith that is in him by words or writing. It is something like what happens in poetical inspiration, of which it has been said: "There is God in us, and when he stirreth he sets us afire." And it is precisely in this sense that God is said to be the origin of the inspiration of the Sacred Books. [54]

[ COMMENT 53 : The Bible today is looked at by most in a very Protestant manner, as being dependent upon each person's own understanding; or what they feel God is saying at that time to them through it. I've time and time again, heard people say that various parts of the Bible can be interpreted to mean different things depending on who is reading it; and that it's up to each individual to draw their own understanding from it, depending on where the "Spirit leads." ]

[ COMMENT 54 : The Modernist sees Biblical Inspiration as merely being a super-powerful impulse to reveal what he personally finds and believes in the Bible. Self is the source of inspiration. The true notion of "inspiration" is,  in its strict sense, the supernatural influence of the Holy Ghost, under which the Bible was written. In his Encyclical on Sacred Scripture Leo XIII writes: "By supernatural power He (the Holy Spirit) so moved and impelled them (the sacred writers) to write - He was so present to them - that the things which He ordered, and those only, they first rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth." ]

The Modernists affirm, too, that there is nothing in these books which is not inspired. In this respect some might be disposed to consider them as more orthodox than certain other moderns who somewhat restrict inspiration, as, for instance, in what have been put forward as tacit citations. But it is all mere juggling of words.[55] For if we take the Bible, according to the tenets of agnosticism, to be a human work, made by men for men, but allowing the theologian to proclaim that it is divine by immanence, what room is there left in it for inspiration? General inspiration, in the Modernist sense, it is easy to find, but of inspiration in the Catholic sense there is not a trace. [56]

[ COMMENT 55 : It is a mere juggling of words, for the whole idea and definition of "Biblical Inspiration" is different for the Modernist, from the idea held by the normal and true Catholic. We see this is so many other areas of theology and the Faith. The Modernist will use traditional words, but for the Modernist those words no longer have a traditional meaning, or they may retain part of the traditional meaning, but they add on an additional Modernist meaning. An example in modern day language might be seen with the word "cool". Traditionally, "cool" meant cold, not hot and not warm In modern language it still means that, but it can also mean "fantastic", "great", etc. Similarly, and even more confusedly, we have the word "bad", which traditionally meant not good. Today, among the younger generation, it can mean the exact opposite, that is to say "good". ]

[ COMMENT 56 : The rejection of the external and traditional authorities on Scripture is based on the faulty and flimsy and erroneous idea that the spiritual and the supernatural is not clearly knowable and thus uncertain (Agnosticism). This makes the Modernist fall back on himself and his self-reliance, self-confidence, and self-trust. He almost becomes a god unto himself. He changes God and the Faith into what he personally thinks is likely and credible. At this point, one can only quote the famous and truthful saying: "He who has himself for a guide, has an ass for a guide!" ]

PART TEN
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR PART ELEVEN.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

MODERNIST DEBATE
OVER THE CHURCH

In 2001, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) and Cardinal Walter Kasper were at loggerheads on the pages of the Jesuit magazine America. The topic of their debate was whether it was the local churches or the universal Church that should be given precedence. At the core of this argument was the question of local pastoral practice versus the universal discipline of the Church.

In his essay, “On the Church,” Cardinal Kasper argued for the precedence of the local Church, highlighting the need for pastoral flexibility over the rigidness of doctrinal universality. “As the bishop of a large diocese,” Kasper wrote, “I had observed how a gap was emerging and steadily increasing between norms promulgated in Rome for the universal church and the needs and practices of our local church.”

Cardinal Kasper made no effort to conceal his animosity toward Cardinal Ratzinger, or his disdain for what he considered the heavy-handedness of Ratzinger's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Kasper argue that for a bishop to “enforce the general norms ruthlessly, as his Roman superiors sometimes expect, his effort is likely to be useless, even counterproductive.”

Later that year, Cardinal Ratzinger responded in the same journal with his own essay titled “The Local Church and the Universal Church.” In his essay, Cardinal Ratzinger reaffirmed the principle “that the universal church (ecclesia universalis) is in its essential mystery a reality that takes precedence, ontologically and temporally, over the individual local churches,” a principle that had been sharply criticized by Cardinal Kasper.

“There is,” Ratzinger wrote, “only one bride, only one body of Christ, not many brides, not many bodies.” Therefore, he asserted, pastorally speaking, the people of God throughout the world must experience the unity of the Church in both her discipline as well as her doctrine.

“Anyone baptized in the church in Berlin is always at home in the church in Rome or in New York or in Kinshasa or in Bangalore or wherever, as if he or she had been baptized there. He or she does not need to file a change-of-address form; it is one and the same church,” he argued.

Once the College of Cardinals elected Joseph Ratzinger to the chair of Peter, Kasper realized that further open debate was futile, and he produced little on the subject from 2005 to 2013.

Why drag up this past argument? Well, it serves to show the constant and dogged persistence of the Modernists in changing the Church from within. That argument was over 15 years ago, and yet today, in Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, this notion of Kasper's has found favor and is included as a recommendation from the pope: "Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For 'cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied' ” (Amoris Laetitia, §3).

The Modernist's new definition of the Church and its practice and discipline is taking an ever-increasing hold in the Church today. "Little by little, one goes far" away from the truth.

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: In Parts One to Nine Pope St. Pius X exposes the Modernist aim to change the Church and the Faith by gradual steps. Modernism, born of Rationalism and Liberalism, works in the the field of religion and the Faith, rejecting divine authority as being unknowable and uncertain, and replaces it with human reason and human judgment—all under the disguise of "reform". Science (meaning all the branches of human learning) is placed above Faith, the natural above the supernatural, the material over the spiritual.

The Modernists do their work in a deliberately vague and confused manner. They only partially say things, create a new obtuse and hard to understand terminology, so that they can have the excuse of being misunderstood, misrepresented and misinterpreted. It hard to refute a vague argument. To pull wool over the eyes of the true Catholic, they deliberately mix traditional teachings and values with modern teachings and values, gradually adding more and more of the modern, and taking away more and more of the traditional. This makes the gullible faithful comfortable, barely realizing that they are being changed.

Dogmas and Sacraments and Holy Scripture, for the Modernist, are neither objective unchangeable truths, nor real avenues of grace instituted by Christ. Dogmas and Sacraments and Holy Scripture are merely visible, audible, tangible expressions of the vague, inner religious sentiments and cravings of the believer. Their diet is one of cotton-candy or candy-floss, instead of traditional "meat" of the Church. ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

THE MODERNIST AND THE CHURCH

§23. A wider field for comment is opened when you come to treat of the vagaries devised by the Modernist school concerning the Church. You must start with the supposition that the Church has its birth in a double need, the need of the individual believer, especially if he has had some original and special experience, to communicate his Faith to others, and the need of the mass, when the Faith has become common to many, to form itself into a society and to guard, increase, and propagate the common good. [57]

What, then, is the Church? It is the product of the collective conscience, that is to say of the society of individual consciences, which, by virtue of the principle of vital permanence, all depend on one first believer, who for Catholics is Christ. Now, every society needs a directing authority to guide its members towards the common end, to conserve prudently the elements of cohesion which in a religious society are doctrine and worship. Hence the triple authority in the Catholic Church, disciplinary, dogmatic, liturgical. [58]

[ COMMENT 57 : As was already said, for the Modernist, dogmas are the outcome of the religious experience of his individual conscience. By communicating these dogmas, the Modernist associates his individual conscience with the consciences of others, and this association of individual consciences forms the Collective Conscience. Here we have all the materials ready for the formation of a Church. For people who share in this Collective Conscience are bound together by a spiritual bond of union. It is natural for people so united in thought to form themselves into a society, and that society is the Church, as Modernists understand it, and a Church with Church authority, for the authority of that Church is the authority of the collective over the individual conscience. That is what Modernists understand by the Church and Church authority. ]
[ COMMENT 58 : "Every society needs a directing authority to guide its members towards the common end ... conserve elements of cohesion."

The nature of this authority is to be gathered from its origin, and its rights and duties from its nature. In past times it was a common error that authority came to the Church from without, that is to say directly from God; and it was then rightly held to be autocratic. But his conception had now grown obsolete. For in the same way as the Church is a vital emanation of the collectivity of consciences, so too authority emanates vitally from the Church itself. [59]

[ COMMENT 59 : The true Catholic says the Church was established by Christ. The Modernist says the Church is the product of the Collective Conscience. It is true, he would add, that this Collective Conscience was inspired by the spirit of Christ living and developing in the life of the faithful collectively. Very well; let us put it that way. The true Catholic says the Church is established by Christ directly. The Modernist says it is established by Christ indirectly at most, for it is established by the Collective Conscience inspired by Christ, or by "Faith in Christ." Again, the true Catholic says Church authority is centered in the divinely appointed Vicar of Christ, Peter and Peter's successors. The Modernist says it is centered in the Collective Conscience. Modernism does not hesitate to say "the entire Christian people is the true and immediate vicar of Christ." So the Church, it seems, is not hierarchical, the Church is democratic; democratic in its origin for it is a product of the Collective Conscience, democratic in its constitution, for its authority is that of the Collective Conscience over the individual. ]

Authority therefore, like the Church, has its origin in the religious conscience, and, that being so, is subject to it. Should it disown this dependence it becomes a tyranny. For we are living in an age when the sense of liberty has reached its fullest development, and when the public conscience has in the civil order introduced popular government. Now there are not two consciences in man, any more than there are two lives. It is for the ecclesiastical authority, therefore, to shape itself to democratic forms, unless it wishes to provoke and foment an intestine conflict in the consciences of mankind. [60]

[ COMMENT 60 : "It is for the ecclesiastical authority to shape itself to democratic forms". This is exactly what is happening now, whereby the Church is seeking to decentralize itself and become an increasingly local church, governed locally more than it is governed by Rome. Thus a democratic principle of power from below is established. Pope Francis us currently hinting and speaking of the "Synodal Church"--which is basically a "Democratic Church"--on various levels, which has to be in essence democratic with the presiders at each level--pope, bishop, priest--listening to those below. ]

The penalty of refusal is disaster. For it is madness to think that the sentiment of liberty, as it is now spread abroad, can surrender. Were it forcibly confined and held in bonds, terrible would be its outburst, sweeping away at once both Church and religion. Such is the situation for the Modernists, and their one great anxiety is, in consequence, to find a way of conciliation between the authority of the Church and the liberty of believers. [61]

[ COMMENT 61 : As Pope Benedict XVI said of the Second Vatican Council, it was the French Revolution of 1789 within the 20th century Catholic Church, whereby the Church took on the principles of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality. This has brought about a false Ecumenism; tied the pope down to collegiality where he is now regarded as more of a 'presider' among equals, rather than the 'monarch' that he should be. ]

PART ELEVEN
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR PART TWELVE.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

THE TRUE RELATION BETWEEN
CHURCH AND STATE

The Church and the State are both perfect societies, each essentially aiming at a common good. Each is competent to provide all the necessary and sufficient means to that common good. Because of their necessary coexistence on the Earth―having the same subjects or citizens―it is inevitable that they should have an interaction, one with the other.

All rights and duties on Earth―whether in the Church or in the State―come ultimately from God. Man, being a citizen of both Church and State, has a twofold responsibility and a twofold goal: (1) he wants to attain an eternal happiness in Heaven, and (2) he wants to attain, to a certain degree, temporal happiness in this world. The eternal happiness is the most important—because it never ends. The temporal happiness is less important—because it will end with death.

The goal of the State is the temporal happiness of man, but not in a way that hinders or handicaps man’s quest for eternal happiness. The goal of the Church is the perfect supernatural happiness of man. Therefore the Church must give and safeguard the means to eternal happiness. It does this by (1) giving grace to the soul in Baptism, and (2) protecting that grace by instructing man to follow the moral order of right and wrong (Confession); (3) to care for Divine worship (Holy Eucharist) and (4) to give to man the supernatural means of grace (the other Sacraments, the practice of prayer and penance and other spiritual exercises).

The State, then, exists to help man to temporal happiness. The Church exists to help man to eternal happiness. Of these two, eternal happiness if of more importance than mere temporal happiness. The dominating goal of man must be to earn eternal salvation: and for that goal, if it is necessary, he must sacrifice his temporal happiness. It is clear, therefore, that the purpose of the Church is higher, in the order of Divine Providence, than that of the State. Hence, in case of direct collision of the two―disagreement between Church and State―God's will and man's need require that the State should yield to the Church.

The State controls its own subjects, in the pursuit of its own natural end, in all things where a higher right does not stop it. The State has full power to govern its citizens, defining their rights and in some cases restricting the exercise of these rights, conferring purely civil rights and imposing civil duties, holding its citizens to a proper condition of public morality, owning property and qualifying private ownership of the same―all within the requirements of the civic purpose of preserving law and order and in promoting the prosperity of the citizens. But it has follow the Divine Law and the Natural Law, which is always above and beyond the control of the State. In other words, if the State enacts a law against the Divine Law, then it has no force of law.

The Church has the right to govern her subjects wherever they may be found. She has the power of (1) declaring to them what is morally right and wrong, and (2) restricting the use of their rights if it might jeopardize their eternal welfare, (3) acquiring and holding property herself, (4) of providing adequate means of sanctification for her members, (5) of caring for Divine worship, and (6) teaching to all the eternal principles of integrity and justice declared in the natural and positive Law of God.

In case of direct contradiction between Church and State, making it impossible for both commands to be exercised, the jurisdiction of the Church prevails, and that of the State is excluded. The reason of this is obvious: both authorities come from God, for the fulfillment of the purposes of the life of man. God cannot contradict Himself; He cannot authorize contradictory powers. His real will and concession of power is determined by the higher purpose of His Providence and man’s need, which is the eternal happiness of man, which is also the ultimate end of the Church. In view of this end God grants the Church the only authority that can exist in such an opposition, or contradiction, between Church and State.

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: In Parts One to Ten, Pope St. Pius X exposes the Modernist aim to gradually change the Church and the Faith. Modernism, born of Rationalism and Liberalism, works in the the field of religion and the Faith, rejecting divine authority as being something unknowable and uncertain, and replaces it what it claims has greater certitude, that is to say human reason and human judgment—all under the disguise of "reform". Science (meaning all the branches of human learning) is placed above Faith, the natural above the supernatural, the material over the spiritual.

The doctrine of Modernists is deliberately vague, confusing and "two-faced" so that when attacked, they can have the excuse of being misunderstood, misrepresented and misinterpreted. It hard to refute a vague argument. To pull wool over the eyes of the true Catholic, they deliberately mix traditional teachings and values with modern teachings and values, gradually adding more and more of the modern, and taking away more and more of the traditional. This makes the gullible faithful comfortable, barely realizing that they are being changed.

Dogmas and Sacraments and Holy Scripture, for the Modernist, are neither objective unchangeable truths, nor real avenues of grace instituted by Christ. Dogmas and Sacraments and Holy Scripture are merely visible, audible, tangible expressions of the vague, inner religious sentiments and cravings of the believer. Their diet is one of cotton-candy or candy-floss, instead of traditional "meat" of the Church.

With regard to the Church, they try to teach that the Church evolved out of the common religious needs of believers, who, following human nature, felt a need to bind themselves together into a society of like-minded believers. As for Christ being the founder of the Church, they will admit this in the sense that it is the spirit of Christ, which lives within them by their religious sentiments and feelings, it is this spirit of Christ that indirectly formed the Church. Again, everything tends towards being "man-made" rather than "God-made". ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

MODERNIST BELIEFS ON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE

§24. But it is not with its own members alone that the Church must come to an amicable arrangement — besides its relations with those within, it has others outside. The Church does not occupy the world all by itself; there are other societies in the world, with which it must necessarily have contact and relations. The rights and duties of the Church towards civil societies must, therefore, be determined, and determined, of course, by its own nature as it has been already described. The rules to be applied in this matter are those which have been laid down for science and Faith, though, in the latter case, the question is one of objects, while here we have one of ends. [62]

[ COMMENT 62 : Earlier, it was said that the end or focus of science was that which was within the scope and limits of human reason and the senses: what could be seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted, etc. Anything outside that scope is held to by unknowable and uncertain by the Modernists. Hence, the material and physical elements give more certitude that the immaterial and spiritual elements. This, then, places the natural, material and physical above the supernatural, immaterial and spiritual. This carries over into the realm of Church and State, whereby the State becomes more important than the Church. ]

In the same way, then, as Faith and science are strangers to each other by reason of the diversity of their objects, Church and State are strangers by reason of the diversity of their ends, that of the Church being spiritual, while that of the State is temporal.

Formerly it was possible to subordinate the temporal to the spiritual and to speak of some questions as mixed, allowing to the Church the position of queen and mistress in all such, because the Church was then regarded as having been instituted immediately by God as the author of the supernatural order.

But this doctrine is today repudiated alike by philosophy and history. The State must, therefore, be separated from the Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. [63] Every Catholic, from the fact that he is also a citizen, has the right and the duty to work for the common good in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself about the authority of the Church, without paying any heed to its wishes, its counsels, its orders ― nay, even in spite of its reprimands [64].

[ COMMENT 63 : This separation of the State from the Church is false, just as the attempted separation of reason from Faith is false. For both Church and State are from God and must be subject to God and there is no division in God, nor can there be any contradiction in God, nor can God oppose Himself. This false separation of State from Church is like a divorce―to which we say: "What God joined together, let no man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6). To separate State from Church is as destructive as a divorce. The child ends up with something akin to a "split personality", whereby he acts one way with one divorced parent, and another way with the other divorced parent. You could almost say that a separation of State from Church creates a schizophrenia of sorts. Our Lord has said that we cannot serve two masters: “No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24). Likewise, we cannot serve a divided or separated Church and State. ]

[ COMMENT 64 : Since all external authority is rejected, or at least doubted, which makes Modernist man an authority unto himself, the natural consequence is that he will follow recommendations, suggestions, counsels and orders only if he himself agrees with them. Modernist an establishes his own set of values and his own hierarchy. it doesn't matter if the Church criticizes or reprimands him, if he does not agree with the Church, then there is nothing the Church can do to make him conform. It is his opinion against the Church's opinion. ]

To trace out and prescribe, for the citizen, any line of conduct, on any pretext whatsoever, is to be guilty of an abuse of ecclesiastical authority, against which one is bound to act with all one's might. The principles from which these doctrines spring have been solemnly condemned by our predecessor Pius VI, in his Constitution Auctorem fidei.

PART TWELVE
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR PART THIRTEEN.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

THE TRUE NOTION OF THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH

Tradition, Bible and Magisterium

(1) Tradition comes from the Greed word paradosis which refers to the transmission of doctrine or customs from one generation to another. We have Tradition passed on both by written (Holy Scripture) and orally (Oral teaching) of Jesus and the Apostles.

(2) The Holy Bible is divine revelation written down and passed down to us through the Church. It contains the Jewish Old Testament and the New Testament with the words Jesus actually spoke and everything else containing as to how the first Apostles and Catholics lived and taught about Jesus.

(3) Magisterium is the living organ of the Catholic Church for correctly interpreting the Holy Scriptures and orally transmitted revealed truths. This is possible because Jesus divinely instituted His Church and gave it divine authority. It is a living magisterium for the preservation, interpretation and transmission of Tradition and the teaching of already divinely revealed truth concerning Faith and Morals.

It is so beautiful how the written down tradition contained in Holy Scripture keeps the Magisterium correct. And, at the same time, the Magisterium and oral tradition helps us correctly understand Holy Scripture. So Holy Scripture goes hand in hand with Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium.

The divinely revealed Holy Scripture has preference over divinely revealed Oral Tradition. But they do not contradict one another and must be placed side by side. God tends to speak to us in the Holy Bible more directly than in oral teaching. But, still, Oral Tradition came before Written Tradition. The New Testament was not written down until 27 years (Letters of St. Paul and St. Matthew's Gospel) to 50 years (St. John’s Book of the Apocalypse) after the death and resurrection of Jesus. In the mean time the Church flourished on Oral Tradition.

Part of the written tradition, (besides the Holy Scriptures), are the Creeds (Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasius). Then there are all the very early Church Fathers writings. One of the most important is the writings of St. Jerome on the meaning of the Holy Bible and the context in which it was written.

The teaching authority of the Church is found in all the documents from all the 21 ecumenical councils. The Second Vatican Council was just one amongst many Councils of the past and was never even intended to be a council that defined doctrine (because it was insisted that it was merely pastoral). Yet most Catholics treat the Second Vatican Council as if is were the only council and wrongly base all their Catholic belief and practices on its pastoral documents.

The Magisterium in More Detail

The Magisterium of the Church is defined as "the Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion". In other words, Our Lord gave His Church the authority to teach the faithful about what is expected of them, and that is what the Church has done consistently from the start.

The Magisterium of Catholic Church teaches the faithful in two ways;

(1) Solemn Magisterium: is Church teaching which is used only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or Popes. This includes dogmatic definitions by councils or Popes teaching "ex cathedra."

(2) Ordinary Magisterium: this second form of Church teaching is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with Faith and Morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers and theologians, in the decisions of the Roman Congregations concerning Faith and Morals, in the common sense of the Faithful, and various historical documents, in which the Faith is declared. (Definitions from A Catholic Dictionary, 1951).

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: In Parts One to Eleven Pope St. Pius X exposes the Modernist aim to gradually change the Church and the Faith. It seeks to do so under the disguise of "reform". Science (meaning all the branches of human learning) is placed above Faith, the natural above the supernatural, the material over the spiritual.

To avoid being "nailed-down", the Modernists resort to being deliberately vague, confusing and "two-faced" so that when attacked, they can protest innocence and have the excuse of being misunderstood, misrepresented and misinterpreted. In their "reforms", they mix traditional teachings and values with modern teachings and values, gradually adding more and more of the modern, and taking away more and more of the traditional. This makes the gullible faithful comfortable, barely realizing that they are being changed.

The Modernists, by seeking constant change, dislike and discredit things that should not change: Dogmas, Sacraments and Holy Scripture come under the "reform" of the Modernists. They say that dogmas can evolve, they change the rites of the Sacraments and the liturgy of the Mass, and they rephrase Holy Scripture so that they can then call into doubt certain passages.

With regard to the Church, they try to teach that the Church evolved out of the common religious needs of believers, who, following human nature, felt a need to bind themselves together into a society of like-minded believers. As for Christ being the founder of the Church, they will admit this in the sense that it is the spirit of Christ, which lives within them by their religious sentiments and feelings, it is this spirit of Christ that indirectly formed the Church. Again, everything tends towards being "man-made" rather than "God-made". Next, they separate the Church from the State and allow the State full autonomy--even if the State goes against the laws of God. This is but a step in the direction of eventually giving the State control over the Church, which is like giving man control over God. ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

THE MODERNIST AND THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH

§25. But it is not enough for the Modernist school that the State should be separated from the Church. For, as Faith is to be subordinated to science, as far as phenomenal elements are concerned, so too in temporal matters the Church must be subject to the State. They do not say this openly as yet ― but they will say it when they wish to be logical on this head. For given the principle that in temporal matters the State possesses absolute mastery, it will follow that when the believer, not fully satisfied with his merely internal acts of religion, proceeds to external acts, such as, for instance, the administration or reception of the Sacraments, these will fall under the control of the State. [65]

[ COMMENT 65 : Understand this, that Modernism seeks to humanize and naturalize as much as it can. It will even try to humanize and naturalize God, by making Christ a mere man and then saying that God is an invention of man that comes from man's need for something above and beyond himself. Therefore, if God is to be man-made, and the Church is a man-made union, then God's authority is man-made, and the authority of the Church is man-made, therefore the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church) is also man-made. But for now, the Modernists have still to tread very carefully, for not everyone is ready to accept such a doctrine. They must led into this kind of belief, little by little. But to avoid chaos among men, there has to be an authority that keeps order and directs things. If it cannot be the spiritual and divine of God and His appointed Church, then it will have to be the rational and purely natural authority of that other society of men--the State. ]

What will then become of ecclesiastical authority, which can only be exercised by external acts? Obviously it will be completely under the dominion of the State. It is this inevitable consequence which impels many among liberal Protestants to reject all external worship, nay, all external religious community, and makes them advocate what they call, individual religion. [66]

[ COMMENT 66 : There will always be those "old-fashioned" types who have a hard time accepting this new teaching, so let them hang onto their "old-fashioned" beliefs, as long they are obedient to the State. It is like a child keep his favorite toy, just to keep the child quiet. ]

If the Modernists have not yet reached this point, they do ask the Church, in the meanwhile, to be good enough to follow spontaneously where they lead her and adapt herself to the civil forms in vogue. Such are their ideas about disciplinary authority. [67]

[ COMMENT 67 : This man-made, one world, purely natural religion based on pure human reason and human needs is the ultimate goal of Modernism--whilst allowing some to keep their sentimental traditional views if it is really necessary. But they too will have to adapt the traditional views to the reality of this new religion and new way of life. ]

But far more advanced and far more pernicious are their teachings on doctrinal and dogmatic authority. This is their conception of the Magisterium of the Church: No religious society, they say, can be a real unit, unless the religious conscience of its members be one, and one also the formula which they adopt. But his double unity requires a kind of common mind whose office is to find and determine the formula that corresponds best with the common conscience, and it must have moreover an authority sufficient to enable it to impose on the community the formula which has been decided upon. [68]

[ COMMENT 68 : This unity in religious "consciousness" or religious "sentiment" or "feelings", once established among Catholics, will then be used to bring all religions together just as it has been used to bring all Catholics together into a new Modernist religion. The "common conscience" of Catholics will then evolve into the "common conscience" of all the world's religions, bring them together into one religion, one single worldwide "common conscience". ]

From the combination and, as it were fusion of these two elements, the common mind [of Modernist believers] which draws up the formula and the authority which imposes it, arises, according to the Modernists, the notion of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. And as this Magisterium springs, in its last analysis, from the individual consciences and possesses its mandate of public utility for their benefit, it follows that the ecclesiastical Magisterium must be subordinate to them, and should therefore take democratic forms. [69]

[ COMMENT 69 : No more "Made-in-Heaven" or "Made-by-God" labels. All is "Made-on-Earth" and "Made-by-Man". As the New Mass says: "The work of human hands!"

To prevent individual consciences from revealing freely and openly the impulses they feel, to hinder criticism from impelling dogmas towards their necessary evolutions ― this is not a legitimate use, but an abuse of a power given for the public utility. [70]

[ COMMENT 70 : Any kind of restriction or criticism is seen as being tyrannical, controlling, rigorist ]

So, too, a due method and measure must be observed in the exercise of authority. To condemn and prescribe a work without the knowledge of the author, without hearing his explanations, without discussion, assuredly savors of tyranny. And thus, here again a way must be found. to save the full rights of authority on the one hand. and of liberty on the other. In the meanwhile the proper course for the Catholic will be to proclaim publicly his profound respect for authority — and continue to follow his own bent. [71]

[ COMMENT 71 : Man has his rights to think what he wants, say what he wants and do what he wants. Ultimately, everyone is right in one way or another. If they are accused of being wrong, it is merely a hasty and rash judgement that has not taken the time to understand and appreciate the other person's viewpoint that is based on his own personal feelings and experiences. We see this bogus attitude being shown by the Modernist Catholic Church to all the false religions of the world. The Modernist Catholic Church pretends that we can learn something from all of them. ]

Their general directions for the Church may be put in this way: Since the end of the Church is entirely spiritual, the religious authority should strip itself of all that external pomp, which adorns it in the eyes of the public. And here they forget that while religion is essentially for the soul, it is not exclusively for the soul, and that the honor paid to authority is reflected back on Jesus Christ who instituted it. [72]

[ COMMENT 72 : We see Pope Francis stripping the Church of "all that external pomp, which adorns it in the eyes of the public." This is a false humility that refuses to give God the best. It produces the sacrifice of Cain and not that of Abel. Cain's sacrifice displeased God and was rejected. ]

PART THIRTEEN
SCROLL DOWN FOR PART FOURTEEN.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

THE TRUE NOTION OF THE UNCHANGING DOCTRINE WITHIN THE CHURCH

There is a great deal of demand from the modern world that the Catholic Church should change Her moral teachings on issues such as contraception and marriage. The Church would (or should) never be foolish enough to change Her teachings for the sake of temporary popularity. For the leaders of the Catholic Church know (or should know) well, that if the Church were to change Her teachings, She would be signing Her own death warrant.

Better no church than a changing church. The Catholic Church is not a social club with arbitrary rules and regulations. She is not a political entity that seeks to protect Her power, by compromising with competing factions. The Catholic Church claims to be the keeper of Christ’s unchanging teaching, and that obedience to Christ’s unchanging teaching is the path to paradise.

The Catholic Church must therefore assert to all persons—friends or enemies—that Her moral teaching is unchanging; if She held otherwise, Her very existence would be execrable. As the keeper of Christ’s unchanging teaching, She claims the charism of infallibility in matters of Faith and Morals.

If She did not claim infallibility in these matters, She would be admitting that God did not entrust His teaching to Her. This, of course, would mean that the Catholic Church lied, and therefore could not be trusted on any issue. Why adhere to a changing Faith that claims to worship an unchanging God? A changing Faith is damnable – an affront to God and a human invention that makes men walk on quicksand.

If the Church were to change any of Her moral teachings to suit the whims of the world, then She would admit that Her teachings are not of God, Who never changes, and Her moral authority would be compromised forever.

The attacks of those who hate the Church would be justified if the Church could simply change Her moral teachings in the face of social pressure. If changes in Her moral teachings were possible, all Her moral rules would merely be shackles made by proud, presumptuous men, preventing people from attaining the pleasure they crave.

But if the Church claims to be the keeper of Christ’s truth, then She must oppose the world when the world opposes Her teachings. Yes, the Catholic can change her methods of instruction and fine-tune Her disciplines. But she cannot alter Her teachings on the Trinity or Her views on marriage, any more than She could repeal the laws of thermodynamics or square the circle.

The Catholic Church’s insistence on Her moral authority puts necessarily Her in opposition to today’s society. The Modernist prophets of permissive morality boast that the world has outgrown old-fashioned Christian moral teachings, and that the pressures of world opinion will eventually force a recalcitrant Catholic Church to change Her moral teaching.

But the Catholic Church views modernity’s opposition to Her moral teachings as a symptom of a world embracing madness. Modernity’s embrace of same-sex marriage is as an affront to sanity.

As one present day cardinal put it: “A proposal to change this truth about marriage in civil law is less a threat to religion than it is an affront to human reason and the common good of society. It means we are all to pretend to accept something we know is physically impossible. The Legislature might just as well repeal the law of gravity.”

It is perfectly true that other Christian denominations have adopted the whims of the world, embracing contraception, same-sex marriage, and other modern fads and fashions. But churches, which have chosen this path, have chosen self-destruction.

The Episcopal Church, the flagship of accommodation to a permissive culture, is rapidly dwindling and splitting between those who have chosen to embrace the Faith their fathers rejected and those who have embraced the new morality.

This bowing-down, of Christian denominations to the dictates of the new morality, has rendered them increasingly irrelevant.

The Catholic Church is a rock in a desert of shifting sands, an unchanging diamond in a sea of shattered glass. Her constancy is Her power; Her fidelity to Christ is Her strength. Let the Church be as She is, or let Her cease to be.

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: In Parts One to Twelve Pope St. Pius X exposes the Modernist aim to gradually change the Church and the Faith. It seeks to do so under the disguise of "reform". Science (meaning all the branches of human learning) is placed above Faith, the natural above the supernatural, the material over the spiritual.

To avoid being "nailed-down", the Modernists resort to being deliberately vague, confusing and "two-faced" so that when attacked, they can protest innocence and have the excuse of being misunderstood, misrepresented and misinterpreted. In their "reforms", they mix traditional teachings and values with modern teachings and values, gradually adding more and more of the modern, and taking away more and more of the traditional. This makes the gullible faithful comfortable, barely realizing that they are being changed.

The Modernists, by seeking constant change, dislike and discredit things that should not change: Dogmas, Sacraments and Holy Scripture come under the "reform" of the Modernists. They say that dogmas can evolve, they change the rites of the Sacraments and the liturgy of the Mass, and they rephrase Holy Scripture so that they can then call into doubt certain passages.

With regard to the Church, they try to teach that the Church evolved out of the common religious needs of believers, who, following human nature, felt a need to bind themselves together into a society of like-minded believers. As for Christ being the founder of the Church, they will admit this in the sense that it is the spirit of Christ, which lives within them by their religious sentiments and feelings, it is this spirit of Christ that indirectly formed the Church. Again, everything tends towards being "man-made" rather than "God-made". Next, they separate the Church from the State and allow the State full autonomy--even if the State goes against the laws of God. This is but a step in the direction of eventually giving the State control over the Church, which is like giving man control over God. All of this is at the base of their evolution of doctrine, which changes with time to adapt itself to the world and the harmonizing its doctrines and the practices with the culture and latest attitudes of the world. ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

THE MODERNIST AND THE EVOLUTION OF DOCTRINE

§26. To finish with this whole question of Faith and its shoots, it remains to be seen, Venerable Brethren, what the Modernists have to say about their development.

First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must change, and in this way they pass to what may be said to be, among the chief of their doctrines, that of Evolution. [73] To the laws of evolution everything is subject ― dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even Faith itself, and the penalty of disobedience is death. [74] The enunciation of this principle will not astonish anybody who bears in mind what the Modernists have had to say about each of these subjects.

[ COMMENT 73 : Pope Pius XII, writing around 40 years after Pope St. Pius X, states in his encyclical Humani Generis: "If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their materialism. Such fictitious tenets of evolution, which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas." ]

[ COMMENT 74 : Pius XII, while he was still Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, and while still serving as Vatican Secretary of State, made an astonishing prophecy about a coming upheaval in the Church: “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucia of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past.” ]

Having laid down this law of evolution, the Modernists themselves teach us how it operates. And first with regard to Faith. The primitive form of Faith, they tell us, was rudimentary and common to all men alike, for it had its origin in human nature and human life. Vital evolution brought with it progress, not by the addition of new and purely external forms, from outside of oneself, but by an increasing penetration of the religious sentiment in the conscience. [75]

[ COMMENT 75 : This is almost saying that man was a "dumb cave man" who had primitive religious needs and feelings that he could not fathom out or explain. It is only thanks to human progress that we can now explain things more clearly in our modern civilized technologically advanced times! The contrary is most likely to be true, whereby we have become dumber in the religious sphere with each generation from the time of Adam, who must have had an awesome knowledge of God. ]

This progress was of two kinds: negative, by the elimination of all foreign elements, such, for example, as those sentiments that arise from family or nationality; and positive by the intellectual and moral refining of man, by means of which the idea of the divine became fuller and clearer, while the religious sentiment became more elevated and more intense. [76] For the progress of Faith, no other causes are to be assigned, than those which are adduced above, to explain its origin. But to them must be added those religious geniuses or extraordinary men whom we call prophets―of whom Christ was the greatest―both because, in their lives and their words, there was something mysterious which Faith attributed to the divinity, and because it fell to their lot to have new and original experiences that were fully in harmony with the needs of their time. [77]

[ COMMENT 76 : Thus Faith depends not on an objective and external truth that God reveals to us and which is not subject to change, regardless of how we may feel about it, but now Faith depends on the feelings, sentiments and intellect of man, and must always be changing and adapting to them. The primitive believer, in the eyes of the Modernist, was an ignorant man, even though he might have been well-intentioned. His Faith was primitive and infantile! Now, in these modern times, the Faith has matured and come of age. Today's Faith is the one that matters, not the old primitive one. ]

[ COMMENT 77 : However, among these early and primitive believers, there were exceptions to the rule. These were believers of genius, Christ being the greatest genius of all. Yet because the rest of the people, who lived at the same time as these geniuses, were not on the same intellectual level as they were, they took that human genius to be superhuman, to be above human, they thought, in their ignorance, that it was divine, and so made Christ out to be some kind of god. ]

The progress of dogma is due chiefly to the fact that obstacles to the Faith have to be surmounted, enemies have to be vanquished, and objections and contradictions have to be refuted. [78] Add to this a perpetual striving to penetrate ever more profoundly into those things which are contained in the mysteries of Faith. [79] Thus, putting aside other examples, it is found to have happened in the case of Christ: in Him that ‘divine something’―which Faith recognized in Him―expanded in such a way that He was at last held to be God.

[ COMMENT 78 : Dogma is not so much a pre-existing and unchangeable truth, but it is merely a changing and improving explanation of the feelings and sentiments of the believer. It comes to life only because of the need to explain these feelings and sentiments to others. ]

[ COMMENT 79 : In other words, man picks and chooses, creates and changes these man-made dogmas each time he gets a deeper understanding of the sentiment of Faith. Thus one dogma may have been "true" for a while, but once that level of believing has been passed and left behind, there is no longer any need for that ancient dogma. It is either changed, modified or replaced by an entirely new one. }

The chief stimulus of evolution, in the domain of worship, consists in the need of adapting itself to the manners and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by long usage. [80]

[ COMMENT 80: The reason the Catholic Church is still here after 2,000 years is that she has not changed according to every fashion that comes along. The Catholic Church’s role is not to adapt to the fashions and ideologies of the world, but to challenge the fashions and ideologies of the world and harness these changing ideologies to unchanging truth. That’s why, although the Church has remained standing for 2,000 years, she has also been persecuted for those 2,000 years. The ideologues of the world would love to have the Catholic Church on board supporting their misguided ambitions to make the world according to their political, social or economic theories, but the Catholic Church steps back from them all―and criticizes them all where they are wrong, and affirms them where they are right. The ideologues cherish the idea that that the Catholic Church might validate their ideologies and pull their bandwagon. This is because they know that the only global organization that transcends languages, tribes, nationalities, economics, politics and culture is the Catholic Church. ]

Finally, evolution in the Church itself, is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society. [81] Such is their idea of religious evolution in detail. And here, before proceeding further, We wish to draw attention to this whole theory of necessities or needs, for it is at the root and, as it were, the foundation of the entire system of the Modernists, and it is upon it that they will erect that famous method of theirs, which they describe as “historical”.

[ COMMENT 81 : The reason the Catholic Church is still here after 2,000 years is that she has not changed according to every fashion that comes along. The Catholic Church’s role is not to adapt to the fashions and ideologies of the world, but to challenge the fashions and ideologies of the world and harness these changing ideologies to unchanging truth. That’s why, although the Church has remained standing for 2,000 years, she has also been persecuted for those 2,000 years. The ideologues of the world would love to have the Catholic Church on board supporting their misguided ambitions to make the world according to their political, social or economic theories, but the Catholic Church steps back from them all―and criticizes them all where they are wrong, and affirms them where they are right. The ideologues cherish the idea that that the Catholic Church might validate their ideologies and pull their bandwagon. This is because they know that the only global organization that transcends languages, tribes, nationalities, economics, politics and culture is the Catholic Church. ]

PART FOURTEEN
SCROLL DOWN FOR PART FIFTEEN.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

JUST ONE OF THE SUBTLE FACES OF MODERNISM TODAY

The "Neo-Catholic"

Neo-Catholicism and neo-Catholic are shorthand terms for a new form of "conservative Catholicism" or "neo-conservative Catholicism" that emerged in the Catholic Church during and after the Second Vatican Council. Use of the terms was first popularized in the book The Great Façade; Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church (2002), a study of unprecedented changes in the Catholic Church since Vatican II. The essential element of this current in the Church is its progressivism relative to Catholicism as it existed before Vatican II.

Terminology

Neo-Catholicism is analogous to neo-conservatism in the political sphere, as distinguished from Catholic traditionalism, which can be likened to political paleo-conservatism. Neo-Catholicism, like neo-conservatism in politics, is not simply traditional conservativism, but rather a combination of conservative and liberal elements representing a progressive tendency overall.

The neo-Catholic is thus distinguishable from the traditionalist Catholic. Just as the neo-conservative is fiscally conservative but socially liberal, the neo-Catholic is doctrinally conservative while nonetheless progressive in embracing or defending changes in Catholic practice, attitudes, and theological speculations arising during the post-Vatican II period, none of which have been imposed as doctrinally binding but rather represent predilections of the neo-Catholic current.

General description

Neo-Catholicism as a new phenomenon in the Catholic Church was described in 1996 by the Catholic commentator George Sim Johnston in an essay favorably reviewing the book Being Right: Conservative Catholics in America. Johnston outlined a form of "conservative" Catholicism that was, he noted, quite different from the Catholicism of the pre-Vatican II era:

The featured players [James Hitchcock, Helen Hull Hitchcock, George Weigel and James Sullivan, formerly of Catholics United for the Faith] do not locate themselves on the theological "right." They embrace Vatican II, don't pine for the Tridentine liturgy, and support the historically radical ecumenism of John Paul II....

By any historical measure, the "conservatives" in this volume are progressive Catholics. Until recently, their views on the role of the laity would not have played well with the Roman curia. Nor would their choice of philosophical mentors: von Balthasar, de Lubac, Congar, Danielou — not to mention John Courtney Murray (all of them Modernists)..

Unlike the Sadducees (Modernists) on the Catholic left, and the Pharisees (Traditionalists) on the truly Catholic right, the "conservatives" in this volume understand the pontificate of John Paul II, because they understand the Second Vatican Council. They understand that Christ founded a teaching Church, whose doctrines are not subject to whim and manipulation. But they also believe that the Church has to change. Vatican II was, for the "neo-Conseravetives", the antidote to the unchanging ways of old.

Neo-Catholicism denotes the current of Catholicism that wants progressivism in the liturgical, theological, philosophical, and ecclesial field—something that would not have been viewed favorably by Rome before Vatican II.

Even though, strictly speaking, neo-Catholicism falls short of outright Modernism, a system of errors against the Faith condemned by Pope Saint Pius X over 50 years before the Second Vatican Council in his landmark encyclical Pascendi, the neo-Catholic is infected with the virus of Modernism. It is the beginning, even though the neo-Catholic abhors Modernism at the moment.

Neo-Catholics are, in fact, Catholics still in good standing, as are Traditionalists, but there are marked differences between the two groups. Neo-Catholicism cannot be equated with simply "all Catholics except traditionalists." Nor is it merely an insulting term invented by traditionalists. The term is intended to capture the unprecedented development of the post-Second Vatican Council division of the body of Catholics into three main currents: a Catholic "left" (Modernists or liberals), a "truly Catholic right" (traditionalists), and the new "conservative" middle ground (compromisers) occupied by those who by any historical measure... are progressive Catholics.

Such a division was not seen in the Catholic Church before Vatican II.

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: In Parts One to Thirteen Pope St. Pius X exposes the Modernist aim to gradually change the Church and the Faith under the disguise of "reform". Science (meaning all the branches of human learning) is placed above Faith, the natural above the supernatural, the material over the spiritual.

To avoid being "nailed-down", the Modernists resort to being deliberately vague, confusing and "two-faced" so that when attacked, they can protest innocence and have the excuse of being misunderstood, misrepresented and misinterpreted. In their "reforms", they mix traditional teachings and values with modern teachings and values, gradually adding more and more of the modern, and taking away more and more of the traditional. This makes the gullible faithful comfortable, barely realizing that they are being changed.

Everything that is stable and authoritative comes under the attack of the Modernists sooner or later. Their desire for constant change uses the tactic of sowing doubt (agnosticism) about all things. They will gradually change Dogmas, Sacraments and Holy Scripture if they are not strongly opposed. They profit from the "dumbness" or ignorance most people have about the Faith, and concoct their own "high-felutin" terminology to confuse minds even more, so that through a lack of comprehension, they leave all discussion and debate in the hands of those Modernists.

The Modernist try to teach that the Church evolved out of the common religious needs and feelings of believers, who, following human nature, felt a need to bind themselves together into a society of like-minded believers. Christ, who really existed, was built-up by the feelings of believers into eventually being a "super-hero" which was the result of sincere embellishments and well-meaning exaggerations. The spirit of Christ, built-up by the fist believers, lives within them by their religious sentiments and feelings. Again, everything tends towards being "man-made" rather than "God-made". Next, they separate the Church from the State and allow the State full autonomy--even if the State goes against the laws of God. This is but a step in the direction of eventually giving the State control over the Church, which is like giving man control over God. All of this is at the base of their evolution of doctrine, which changes with time to adapt itself to the world and the harmonizing its doctrines and the practices with the culture and latest attitudes of the world.

Pope St. Pius X then explained how this spirit of change affects the liturgical worship of the Church. Since Modernism wishes to adapt itself to the spirit of the times, then it only logical for the Modernist to introduce this spirit into the way he worships. This explains the crazy Modernist introductions of "Guitar Masses", "Clown Masses", Rock Masses", etc. which merely seek to introduce the fun-loving, entertainment-seeking spirit of the world into the liturgy. The same is true for doctrine. It must evolve with attitudes of the times and take them into account. We see the results of this with an increasing acceptance among Modernist Catholics of sin in all its forms. These "Catholics" now accept contraception, abortion, divorce, remarriage, and same-sex relationships and marriages. ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

THE MODERNIST IGNORES ALL REPRIMANDS

§28. Still continuing the consideration of the evolution of doctrine, it is to be noted that Evolution is due, no doubt, to those stimulants styled needs, but, if left to their action alone, it would run a great risk of bursting the bounds of tradition, and thus, turned aside from its primitive vital principle, would lead to ruin instead of progress.

Hence, studying more closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as resulting from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force in the Church is tradition, and tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact; for by right it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition, and, in fact, for authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs lies in the individual consciences and ferments there ― especially in such of them as are in most intimate contact with life. [82]

[ COMMENT 82 : This "two-faced" approach, showing on one hand the face of tradition, and on the other wearing the face of progress, makes the Modernist harder to deal with. For with once face they agree with you, and with the other face they challenge you. With one hand they caress, with the other they slap you in the Faith. They will feign a love for Church and the Faith, while they destroy the Church and the Faith. ]

Note here, Venerable Brethren, the appearance already of that most pernicious doctrine, which would make of the laity a factor of progress in the Church. Now it is by a species of compromise between the forces of conservation and of progress, that is to say between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The individual consciences of some of them act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositaries of authority, until the latter consent to a compromise, and, the pact being made, authority sees to its maintenance. [83]

[ COMMENT 83 : Today, the act of compromising has been wrongly and insidiously made to look like a virtue. Yet, in reality, compromise is a double-agent, a traitor, a Judas Iscariot. Our Lady, speaking of the plight of Church, said in Akita in 1973: "The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that ... the Church will be full of those who accept compromises." ]

With all this in mind, one understands how it is that the Modernists express astonishment when they are reprimanded or punished. What is imputed to them as a fault, they regard as a sacred duty. Being in intimate contact with consciences, they know better than anybody else, and certainly better than the ecclesiastical authority, what needs exist ― nay, they embody them, so to speak, in themselves. Having a voice and a pen, they use both publicly, for this is their duty. Let authority rebuke them as much as it pleases ― they have their own conscience on their side and an intimate experience which tells them, with certainty, that what they deserve is not blame, but praise. [84]

[ COMMENT 84 : Pride, stubbornness, false-reasoning and a twisted deformed Faith makes them play the audacious role of a pseudo-martyr for the Faith! In reality, they are only martyrs for the devil, who will only too happily give them pride of place in Hell. For sins against the Faith are among the most serious sins that we can commit. ]

Then they reflect that, after all, there is no progress without a battle and no battle without its victim, and victims they are willing to be like the prophets and Christ Himself. They have no bitterness in their hearts against the authority, which uses them roughly, for after all it is only doing its duty as authority. Their sole grief is that the authorities remain deaf to their warnings, for in this way it impedes the progress of souls, but the hour will most surely come when further delay will be impossible, for if the laws of evolution may be checked for a while, they cannot be ultimately destroyed or evaded. [85]

[ COMMENT 85 : This pseudo-martyrdom of Modernists unfortunately wins for them much compassion and sympathy from dumbed-down and non-thinking Catholics, which serves to fuel the fires of "canonization" by fellow Modernists. Their false humility and stoic acceptance of all criticism and all sanctions merely pours more gasoline on the fire. ]

And so they go their way, reprimands and condemnations notwithstanding, masking an incredible audacity under a mock semblance of humility. While they make a show of bowing their heads, their hands and minds are more intent than ever on carrying out their purposes. And this policy they follow willingly and wittingly, both because it is part of their system, that authority is to be stimulated, but not dethroned, and, because it is necessary for them to remain within the ranks of the Church, in order that they may gradually transform the collective conscience — thus unconsciously avowing that the common conscience is not with them, and that they have no right to claim to be its interpreters. [86]

[ COMMENT 86 : This fake humility and non-aggressive bowing of the head in face of criticism, reprimand and punishments, wins for them many non-thinking supporters, whose number today is legion. This can be seen in the vast numbers of lay Catholics who now hold fast to beliefs that blatantly contradict the teachings of the Church. This subtle cancer has also grown with the Traditional and Conservative ranks, whereby even they are starting to pick and choose the pieces they want or do not want, as they also start to, belatedly, construct their own personal version of what they feel the Catholic Faith should be! ]

PART FIFTEEN
SCROLL DOWN FOR PART SIXTEEN.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF NONSENSE!
MODERNISM 101

After defining Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies, Pope St. Pius X points out that the agnosticism of the Modernist philosophy leads to atheism.

Agnosticism bars man from approaching God through the intellect. Remember, it says that God is completely unknowable by human reason. Instead, it proposes that a better way of approaching God is through “a certain sense of the soul and action”. But in reality (not in Modernism), the “sense of the soul” is the soul's response to what the intellect or the senses set before it. If man does not approach things with the intellect, man becomes the slave of his senses. Common sense also recognizes that emotion and everything that leads the heart captive hinders the discovery of truth.

The Modernist relies on “experiences” to build their system of beliefs. The religious sense, or religious feeling, is open to deception when intelligence is not there to guide it.

The Modernist philosopher begins with Agnosticism. Many people think that agnosticism is simply acknowledging that one does not know whether or not God exists. But in the Modernist system, agnosticism is a denial that anyone can even know whether God exists. All we can reason about is phenomena: things that appear to us, and the way they appear to us. Since the existence of God is not a phenomena, we can't reason about it. We can't even consider God as a historical subject.

Right out of the gate, the Modernist has started to oppose solid Catholic teaching about reality. The first Vatican Council anathematizes those who say that God cannot be known with certainty from human reason. We can come to know God through reasoning.

Where agnosticism puts limits on what the Modernist philosopher can reason about, “vital immanence” (see further above) declares where he can start reasoning. Reasoning, in the Modernist system, starts with the phenomena that man experiences. Having denied the ability to reason about God, their understanding of religion must start with phenomena. They say that since religion is a form of life, the explanation for religion must be found in the life of man. Man has an interior “need or impulsion” that sparks such phenomena.

Since God is the object of religion, faith is the interior sense that pines for the divine. This need of the divine, this religious sense, might not even be felt in some people, but it may, instead, be a subconscious need.

This interior, religious sense is not only the basis of faith for the Modernist, but also the source of revelation. They even go so far as to say that the religious sense “is the germ (or seed) of all religion, and the explanation of everything that has ever been or ever will be in any religion” (Pascendi, §10). This goes for the Catholic religion as much as any other.

So the interior religious sense, through the agency of vital immanence, is the basis of faith and the explanation of everything in faith. But when God presents himself through this religious sense, the impression is confused and indistinct (according to the Modernist). The only way for it to become more clear is for the intellect to reflect on and analyze religious sense impressions. “The mind then, encountering this sense, throws itself upon it, and works in it after the manner of a painter, who restores to greater clearness the lines of a picture that have been dimmed with age.” (Pascendi, §11)

This working over of sense impressions with the mind brings the Modernist two results: first, a concept in a simple, popular statement, and secondly, secondary propositions that are purportedly more precise and distinct, and elaborate that original statement.

According to the Modernist, secondary propositions that the church agrees upon are then considered dogma.

Let's walk this back a minute. First, someone receives a religious sense, which is nothing more than an inner impulse of some vague sort. Then, by reflecting on that sense, the Modernist produces what amounts to a slogan, and then refines that slogan to suit his purposes.

To the Modernist, this prideful speculation is the source of dogma. Not the omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent God Almighty, no, but somebody reflecting on their tummy rumblings.

That's bad enough. But then the Modernist goes on to say that since these dogmas come from confused sense impressions in man, and not through any means of objective revelation, these secondary propositions (which they also call symbols) are subject to change.

Yes, according to the Modernist philosopher, dogma is subject to change. Not only is it subject to change, but it must change, to be in accord with the living religious sense.

This is completely contrary to the nature of God, who is unchanging, and whose dogmas are unchanging.

So, to recap: in the Modernist philosophy, agnosticism and vital immanence lead to defining faith and revelation as a personal religious sense, which becomes the changeable source of changeable dogma.

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: In Parts One to Fourteen, Pope St. Pius X shows that Modernism aims to gradually change the Church and the Faith under the disguise of "reform", but by being deliberately vague, confusing and "two-faced" in order to avoid being "nailed-down". Thus they mix traditional teachings and values with modern teachings and values, gradually adding more and more of the modern, and taking away more and more of the traditional. This makes the gullible faithful comfortable, barely realizing that they are being changed.

Everything that is stable and authoritative comes under the attack of the Modernists sooner or later: Dogmas, Sacraments and Holy Scripture. The Modernist try to teach that the Church evolved out of the common religious needs and feelings of believers, who, following human nature, felt a need to bind themselves together into a society of like-minded believers. Everything tends towards being "man-made" rather than "God-made". Next, they separate the Church from the State and allow the State full autonomy--even if the State goes against the laws of God. This is but a step in the direction of eventually giving the State control over the Church, which is like giving man control over God. All of this is at the base of their evolution of doctrine, which changes with time to adapt itself to the world and the harmonizing its doctrines and the practices with the culture and latest attitudes of the world.

All attempts are correcting them are met with a false and fake humility, that publicly bows its head, but continues its evil agenda quietly behind the scenes. Today, almost all the Catholic world is Modernist and so one can no longer expect any reprimands or punishments to come from Church authorities, except in the most grave cases--which then leads gullible souls to thing something is being done about it! ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

THE MODERNIST AS HISTORIAN AND CRITIC

§29. After having studied the Modernist as philosopher, believer and theologian, it now remains for us to consider him as historian, critic, apologist, reformer.

§30. Some Modernists, devoted to historical studies, seem to be greatly afraid of being taken for philosophers. About philosophy, they tell you, they know nothing whatever ― and in this they display remarkable astuteness, for they are particularly anxious not to be suspected of being prejudiced in favor of philosophical theories, which would lay them open to the charge of not being objective, to use the word in vogue. And yet the truth is that their history and their criticism are saturated with their philosophy, and that their "historico-critical" conclusions are the natural fruit of their philosophical principles. [87]

[ COMMENT 87 : In other words, they have a philosophy, they know they have a philosophy, but they also realize that their philosophy is faulty philosophy. So they insist and say they have no philosophy. This way they don't have to fully explain their philosophy and if they don;t explain it, then it is harder to attack and shoot down. Slippery as an eel. ]

This will be patently obvious to anybody who reflects upon it. Their three first laws are contained in those three principles of their philosophy already dealt with: (1) the principle of agnosticism, (1) the principle of the transfiguration of things by Faith, and (3) the principle which We have called of disfiguration. Let us see what consequences flow from each of them.

AGNOSTICISM WITH REGARD TO THE FAITH: Agnosticism tells us that history, like every other science, deals entirely with phenomena, and the consequence is that God, and every intervention of God in human affairs, is to be relegated to the domain of Faith as belonging to it alone. In things where a double element, the divine and the human, mingles, in Christ, for example, or the Church, or the sacraments, or the many other objects of the same kind, a division must be made and the human element assigned to history while the divine will go to Faith.

Hence we have that distinction, so current among the Modernists, between the Christ of history and the Christ of Faith, between the sacraments of history and the sacraments of Faith, and so on. [88]

[ COMMENT 88 : This leads to schizophrenia of belief. There are two Christs. One is a Christ of history. The other is a Christ of Faith. A Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide situation. Take the one you want, whenever it is convenient for whatever it is you want to do. You will always find a Christ to suit your needs. ]

TRANSFIGURATION OF THE FAITH: Next we find that the human element itself, which the historian has to work on, as it appears in the documents, has been by Faith transfigured, that is to say raised above its historical conditions. It becomes necessary, therefore, to eliminate also the accretions which Faith has added, to assign them to Faith itself and to the history of Faith: thus, when treating of Christ, the historian must set aside all that surpasses man in his natural condition, either according to the psychological conception of him, or according to the place and period of his existence. [89]

[ COMMENT 89 : In essence it is like saying: "You can only be one Christ at a time! You are either the Christ of history at this moment and at this point in the discussion / study; or you are the Christ of Faith! You can't be both! The Christ of history is a mere man. The Christ of Faith has been embellished and exaggerated and has evolved into a Super-Christ, and has been given all kinds of imaginary powers, like that of performing miracles, which the Christ of history never had. ]

DISFIGURATION OF THE FAITH: Finally, by virtue of the third principle, even those things which are not outside the sphere of history, they pass through the crucible, excluding from history and relegating to Faith everything which, in their judgment, is not in harmony with what they call "the logic of facts" and in character with the persons of whom they are predicated. Thus, they will not allow that Christ ever uttered those things which do not seem to be within the capacity of the multitudes that listened to Him. [90]

[ COMMENT : In other words, what the Modernists do is disfigure the truth of history and replace it with a version of history that THEY think or imagine is more believable or more likely. We call this "revisionist history" when someone changes the true facts of history and replaces them with a false set of facts, or re-interprets facts in a false way. ]

Hence they delete from His real history and transfer to Faith all the allegories found in His discourses. Do you inquire as to the criterion they adopt to enable them to make these divisions? The reply is that they argue from the character of the man, from his condition of life, from his education, from the circumstances under which the facts took place — in short, from criteria which, when one considers them well, are purely subjective. Their method is to put themselves into the position and person of Christ, and then to attribute to Him what they would have done under like circumstances. In this way, absolutely a priori and acting on philosophical principles, which they admit they hold, but which they pretend to ignore, they proclaim that Christ, according to what they call His real history, was not God and never did anything divine, and that as man He did and said only what they, judging from the time in which he lived, can admit Him to have said or done. [91]

[ COMMENT 91 : This is like someone else telling you what you are thinking, and what your motives are, when you yourself know that their claims are untrue. Yet they manage to make everyone believe that you are thinking what you are not really thinking, and that you are doing something for a motive which is the opposite to the motive that you really have. The Modernists, in certain sense, become God or Christ themselves in their pretense in knowing what God or Christ really intended, really meant, and really did. ]

PART SIXTEEN
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR PART SEVENTEEN.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

A RECAP OF MODERNISM

What Is Modernism?
By its very nature, Modernism — the synthesis of all heresies, according to Pope St. Pius X — is hard to define because it doesn’t have an official creed. For this reason, it is like nailing jelly to a wall. There are some basic components to Modernism, however, some of which are as follows:

All Religions Are Equal
For the Modernist, it doesn't matter if you are a Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan or snake handler; all that matters is that one is religious in some way, since all religious paths lead to God. Clearly, this is at odds with Jesus Christ, Who said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by Me” (John 14:6). It is also at odds with what the Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism: “Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on Earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of Faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §846).

Religion is not about dogma but about sentimentality and feelings
For the Modernist, religion is essentially about what makes you feel good; if Christianity, or any other religion, is what makes you feel good and more in touch with the Divine, then it is true for you. In other words, religion does not consist of creeds or objective truth but of feelings. The true Catholic standpoint is, as we saw in John 14:6, quoted above, truth isn't subjective, but is found only in Jesus and His Church.

The Historical Jesus is not necessarily the Jesus of the Gospels
This means the Scriptures are not necessarily reliable from an historical perspective, according to the Modernist. For example, the Modernist would say that Jesus may not have truly risen from the dead. According to this view, the Resurrection, mentioned in Scripture, was essentially the way the Apostles chose to communicate the belief that Jesus continues to live in our hearts after His crucifixion. This is completely at odds with the truth of St. Paul, who said: “And if Christ be not risen again, your Faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins” (1 Corinthians 15:17).

Doctrine Evolves
The Modernist says that in previous centuries, the dogmas of the Faith, such as the dogmas of the Trinity, were true, but since dogma evolves, it may no longer be true today. For the Modernist, dogma evolves into whatever accommodates the needs of the current culture. This is refuted by the fact that the dogmas of the Faith are revealed by God, and God cannot contradict Himself.

Orthodox Terminology is Maintained, but the Definitions of the Terms Are Changed
Words like “God,” “Resurrection,” “Trinity,” and “salvation” are all used by the Modernist, but what they mean by these terms has nothing to do with what these terms have traditionally meant in the history of the Church. For this reason, Modernists may appear to be orthodox, but one eventually discovers their true nature once they dig more deeply into the meaning of the terminology they use. This view of dogma was refuted by the First Vatican Council: “Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding” (On Faith and Reason, 14).

THE ORIGINS OF MODERNISM

The Protestant Revolution
For the Protestant, the individual rejects the Magisterium established by Christ and replaces it with the individual. Given this view, it was only a matter of time that the individual would be elevated to a position to interpret and define all matters of Faith and morals for himself.

The Enlightenment
The Enlightenment rejected all divine revelation and exalted man's ability, by reason alone, to determine what is true in matters of Faith and morals. This eventually led to the Modernist view that the individual, and not God or Magisterium, determines what is true.

Early 20th-Century Theologians
Modernism was especially made popular by early 20th-century theologians like Alfred Loisy and George Tyrrell, among others. These men were eventually excommunicated for their espousal of Modernism.

AREAS WHERE MODERNISM BREEDS

Modernism in the Liturgy
Modernists do not see the liturgy of the Church as the primary way to worship God. Instead, they see it as an opportunity for man to gather together for purposes other than the worship of God. Thus, they think the liturgy shouldn't be primarily about what God wants, but about what modern man likes. For the Modernist, liturgy is primarily about sentimentality and not the worship of God.

Modernism in Dogma
Another prevalent example of Modernism in the Church today is the “hermeneutic of discontinuity.” This is the view that sees everything before Vatican II as obsolete. In other words, since doctrine evolves for the Modernist, the things that were true before Vatican II do not necessarily apply to the Church after Vatican II. Why? Because the needs and sentiments of the faithful today are different to those of earlier years. So what was 'good' and 'true' back then, no longer applies, for our needs have changed. For the Modernist, a new Church was created after Vatican II, and this Church has new truths that are not necessarily the same as those before Vatican II.

Modernism in Scripture Studies
Modernism has infected the Church in Scripture studies by what is called Higher Criticism. Higher Criticism is an approach to Scripture that often questions the historicity of events mentioned in Scripture. A recent example of the heresy of Modernism in Scripture studies is Cardinal Kasper, who openly denies the historicity of the miracles of Christ. The same Cardinal Kasper who wants to allow remarried divorcees and same-sex marriage partners to receive Holy Communion.

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: In Parts One to Fifteen, Pope St. Pius X exposes Modernism as seeking to gradually change the Church and the Faith under the disguise of "reform". Modernism uses the tactic of being deliberately vague, confusing and "two-faced" in order to avoid being "nailed-down". Thus they mix traditional teachings and values with modern teachings and values, gradually switching from traditional to modern. This makes the gullible faithful comfortable, barely realizing that they are being changed.

The Modernists will eventually attack and change all that is stable and authoritative: Dogmas, Sacraments and Holy Scripture. These things, say the Modernists, all evolved out of the common religious needs and feelings of believers. This is the basis for the their evolution of dogma, which changes with time to adapt itself to the world and the harmonizing its doctrines and the practices with the culture and latest attitudes of the world. Everything tends towards being "man-made" rather than "God-made". Next, they separate the Church from the State and allow the State full autonomy--even if the State goes against the laws of God. This is but a step in the direction of eventually giving the State control over the Church, which is like giving man control over God.

All attempts are correcting them are met with a false and fake humility, that publicly bows its head, but continues its evil agenda quietly behind the scenes. They take the Faith and pass it through the triple grinding-down of (1) Agnosticism, (2) Transfiguration of teachings, and (3) Disfiguration of teachings. ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

MODERNIST CRITICISM AND ITS PRINCIPLES

§31. And as history receives its conclusions, ready-made, from philosophy, so too criticism takes its own from history. The critic, on the data furnished him by the historian, makes two parts of all his documents. Those that remain after the triple elimination [Agnosticism, Transfiguration and Disfiguration] described above, go to form the real history; the rest is attributed to the history of the Faith or as it is styled, to internal history. [92]

[ COMMENT 92 : Having already blurred, dissected and chopped-up the historical aspect of the Faith by Agnosticism, Transfiguration and Disfiguration, they find that Faith they want to murder is still living somehow! So they shave away some more of it, by calling only some the surviving Faith "real history" and the remainder as being part of our imagination, politely treating it as "internal history". If you are having a hard time following their thought pattern, rest assured that this is normal, because for a normal person who resides in the truth, a fake fabrication of truth, as done by the Modernists, will not appear to be normal, but something crazy! ]

For the Modernists distinguish very carefully between these two kinds of history, and it is to be noted that they oppose the history of the Faith to real history precisely as real. Thus we have a double Christ: a real Christ, and a Christ, the one of Faith, who never really existed; a Christ who has lived at a given time and in a given place, and a Christ who has never lived outside the pious meditations of the believer — the Christ, for instance, whom we find in the Gospel of St. John, which is pure contemplation from beginning to end. [93]

[ COMMENT 93 : So for us, St. John's Gospel is a true historical account of certain aspects of Christ's life―which what it truly is―but for the Modernist, it is merely St. John's pious and devout musings on Christ, which embellishes, exaggerates and transfigures Christ into something that He was not. Once you sow doubt like this, and once foolish people "buy-into" this Modernist nonsense, then the whole foundation of the Faith begins to rock. ]

§32. But the dominion of philosophy over history does not end here. Given that division, of which We have spoken, of dividing the documents into two parts, the philosopher steps in again with his principle of vital immanence, and shows how everything in the history of the Church is to be explained by vital emanation. And since the cause or condition of every vital emanation, whatsoever, is to be found in some need, it follows that no fact can pre-date the need which produced it ― historically the fact must come after the need. [93]

[ COMMENT 93 : Once again, vital immanence or vital emanation, is a theory that believes that all divine things come from within us and not from external things like revelation. We are the source, nothing else. It is our religious sentiment that creates a need for a God. It is our religious sentiment that created a need for religion. It is all within us and creation of our needs, feelings and experiences. If you can reduce everything, or almost everything down to being caused by vital immanence, then you reduce objective truth (meaning that which really exists or is true, regardless of my personal feelings) down to a subjective truth (meaning that truth is dependent upon me, and not anything outside of me), then you have created and allowed for millions of contradictory truths, which in turn leads to chaos, anarchy and a breakdown of social, moral and religious discipline, because everyone can what they want and feel is true. ]

See how the historian works on this principle. He goes over his documents again, whether they be found in the Sacred Books or elsewhere, draws up from them his list of the successive needs of the Church, whether relating to dogma or liturgy or other matters, and then he hands his list over to the critic.

The critic takes in hand the documents dealing with the history of Faith and distributes them, period by period, so that they correspond exactly with the lists of needs, always guided by the principle that the narration must follow the facts, as the facts follow the needs. It may at times happen that some parts of the Sacred Scriptures, such as the Epistles, themselves constitute the fact created by the need. Even so, the rule holds that the age of any document can only be determined by the age in which each need had manifested itself in the Church. [94]

[ COMMENT 94 : This is a total shredding of the authority and historicity of Holy Scripture and Tradition, which are the pillars that support the Faith. Once those pillars are damaged, the edifice of the Faith will gradually crumble. What happens is that you have a bunch of self-interpreting, feeling-followers, self-determining Protestants who have the nerve to still call themselves Catholics. Their confusing rationalizations, the complicated irrational terminology they have invented, and their interminably long documents all contribute to the intimidation, confusion and bewitching of normal minds, who feel dumb in such an environment―thus keeping a timorous silence. ]

Further, a distinction must be made between the beginning of a fact and its development, for what is born one day requires time for growth. Hence the critic must once more go over his documents, ranged as they are through the different ages, and divide them again into two parts, and divide them into two lots, separating those that regard the first stage of the facts from those that deal with their development, and these he must again arrange according to their periods. [95]

[ COMMENT 95 : This is basically the wearing down by so-called "red-tape". Everything is passed backwards and forwards, which simply drains anyone who wants to follow a paper-trail in trying to combat their moves. It all adds to the confusion and thus increases the chances of reaching their objectives. ]

§33. Then the philosopher must come in again to impose on the historian the obligation of following in all his studies the precepts and laws of evolution. It is next for the historian to scrutinize his documents once more, to examine carefully the circumstances and conditions affecting the Church during the different periods, the conserving force she has put forth, the needs both internal and external that have stimulated her to progress, the obstacles she has had to encounter, in a word everything that helps to determine the manner in which the laws of evolution have been fulfilled in her.

This done, he finishes his work by drawing up in its broad lines a history of the development of the facts. The critic follows and fits in the rest of the documents with this sketch; he takes up his pen, and soon the history is made complete.

Now we ask here: Who is the author of this history? The historian? The critic? Assuredly, neither of these, but the philosopher. From beginning to end everything in it is a priori, and a priori in a way that reeks of heresy. [96]

[ COMMENT 96 : The whole process has been going round in circles and has collected so many fingerprints, that it is hard for many to be able to point the finger at the guy "whodunnit". ]

These men are certainly to be pitied, and of them the Apostle might well say: "They became vain in their thoughts. . . professing themselves to be wise they became fools" (Romans 1:21-22); but, at the same time, they excite just indignation when they accuse the Church of torturing the texts, arranging and confusing them after its own fashion, and for the needs of its cause. In this they are accusing the Church of something for which their own conscience plainly reproaches them.

PART SEVENTEEN
PART SEVENTEEN IS NOW BEING ASSEMBLED. PLEASE CHECK BACK LATER.

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED
& HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

WHAT IS APOLOGETICS?

“Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged ... Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them.” (Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Our Apostolic Mandate, August 25th, 1910).

Catholic Apologetics is the science of explaining the Catholic Faith in a rational and reasonable manner.

The term Apologetics comes from the Greek word, apologia meaning:

● a speaking in defense of a teaching, or
● a presentation or defense for what one believes.

Many are confused by this word because in common English language it implies or suggests something different: an apology is a justifiable or unjustifiable excuse for doing something wrong. This different definition is not being used here. Good Catholics are never sorry for being Catholic, rather they feel blessed and proud to be Catholic. It is nothing to apologize for! In the Catholic Church, the word apology takes on a secondary meaning: “the science of explaining the Catholic Faith in a rational and reasonable manner.” Apologetics is a theological science which has for its purpose the explanation and defense of the Christian religion.

The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us the following about Apologetics:

Apologetics means, broadly speaking, a form of apology. The term is derived from the Latin adjective, apologeticus, which, in turn has its origin in the Greek adjective, apologetikos, the substantive being apologia, meaning “apology”, “defense”. As an equivalent of the plural form, the variant, “Apologetic”, is now and then found in recent writings, suggested probably by the corresponding French and German words, which are always in the singular. But the plural form, “Apologetics”, is far more common and will doubtless prevail, being in harmony with other words similarly formed, as ethics, statistics, homiletics.

In defining apologetics as a form of apology, we understand the latter word in its primary sense, as a verbal defense against a verbal attack, a disproving of a false accusation, or a justification of an action or line of conduct wrongly made the object of censure. Such, for example, is the Apology of Socrates, such the Apologia of John Henry Newman. This is the only sense attaching to the term as used by the ancient Greeks and Romans, or by the French and Germans of the present day.

Quite different is the meaning now conveyed by our English word, “apology”, namely, an explanation of an action acknowledged to be open to blame. The same idea is expressed almost exclusively by the verb, “apologize”, and generally by the adjective, “apologetic”. For this reason, the adoption of the word, “Apologetics”, in the sense of a scientific vindication of the Christian religion is not altogether a happy one. Some scholars prefer such terms as “Christian Evidences”, the “Defense of the Christian Religion”.

“Apologetics” and “Apology” are not altogether interchangeable terms. The latter is the generic term, the former the specific. Any kind of accusation, whether personal, social, political, or religious, may call forth a corresponding apology. It is only apologies of the Christian religion that fall within the scope of apologetics. Nor is it all such. There is scarcely a dogma, scarcely a ritual or disciplinary institution of the Church that has not been subjected to hostile criticism, and hence, as occasion required, been vindicated by proper apologetics. But besides these forms of apology, there are the answers that have been called forth by attacks of various kinds upon the credentials of the Christian religion, apologies written to vindicate now this, now that ground of the Christian, Catholic Faith, that has been called in question or held up to disbelief and ridicule.

Now it is out of such apologies for the foundations of Christian belief that the science of Apologetics has taken form. Apologetics is the Christian Apology par excellence, combining in one well-rounded system the arguments and considerations of permanent value that have found expression in the various single apologies. The latter, being answers to specific attacks, were necessarily conditioned by the occasions that called them forth. They were personal, controversial, partial vindications of the Christian position. In them the refutation of specific charges was the prominent element.

Apologetics, on the other hand, is the comprehensive, scientific vindication of the grounds of Christian, Catholic belief, in which the calm, impersonal presentation of underlying principles is of paramount importance, the refutation of objections being added by way of corollary. It addresses itself not to the hostile opponent for the purpose of refutation, but rather to the inquiring mind by way of information. Its aim is to give a scientific presentation of the claims which Christ's revealed religion has on the assent of every rational mind; it seeks to lead the inquirer after truth to recognize, first, the reasonableness and trustworthiness of the Christian revelation as realized in the Catholic Church, and secondly, the corresponding obligation of accepting it.

While not compelling Faith — for the certitude it offers is not absolute, but moral — it shows that the credentials of the Christian religion amply suffice to vindicate the act of Faith as a rational act, and to discredit the estrangement of the skeptic and unbeliever as unwarranted and culpable. Its last word is the answer to the question: Why should I be a Catholic? Apologetics thus leads up to Catholic Faith, to the acceptance of the Catholic Church as the divinely authorized organ for preserving and rendering efficacious the saving truths revealed by Christ. This is the great fundamental dogma on which all other dogmas rest. Hence apologetics also goes by the name of “fundamental theology”.

Apologetics is generally viewed as one branch of dogmatic science, the other and chief branch being dogmatic theology proper. It is well to note, however, that in point of view and method also they are quite distinct. Dogmatic theology, like moral theology, addresses itself primarily to those who are already Catholic. It presupposes Faith. Apologetics, on the other hand, in theory at least, simply leads up to Faith. The former begins where the latter ends.

Apologetics is pre-eminently a positive, historical discipline, whereas dogmatic theology is rather philosophic and deductive, using as its premises data of divine and ecclesiastical authority — the contents of revelation and their interpretation by the Church. It is only in exploring and in treating dogmatically the elements of natural religion, the sources of its authoritative data, that dogmatic theology comes in touch with apologetics.

As has been pointed out, the object of apologetics is to give a scientific answer to the question, Why should I be Catholic? Now this question involves two others which are also fundamental. The one is: Why should I be a Christian rather than an adherent of the Jewish religion, or the Mohammedan, or the Zoroastrian, or of some other religious system setting up a rival claim to be revealed? The other, still more fundamental, question is: Why should I profess any religion at all? Thus the science of apologetics easily falls into three great divisions:

● First, the study of religion in general and the grounds of theistic belief (belief in God);

● Second, the study of revealed religion and the grounds of Christian belief;

● Third, the study of the true Church of Christ and the grounds of Catholic belief.

THE TEXT OF THE ENCYCLICAL WITH COMMENTARY

Any additional explanations, clarifications or commentary will be posted in red type

[ OPENING COMMENTS: So far, Pope St. Pius X exposes Modernism as seeking to gradually change the Church and the Faith under the disguise of "reform" aided and abetted by the tactics of deliberate vagueness, confusing arguments and a "two-faced" position (Traditional and Liberal) in order to avoid being "nailed-down". This makes the gullible faithful comfortable, barely realizing that they are being gradually changed.

The Modernists will eventually attack and change all that is stable and authoritative: Dogmas, Sacraments and Holy Scripture. These things, say the Modernists, all evolved out of the common religious needs and feelings of believers. They seek to adapt themselves to the world and the harmonizing its doctrines and the practices with the culture and latest attitudes of the world. Everything tends towards being "man-made" rather than "God-made". Next, they separate the Church from the State and allow the State full autonomy--even if the State goes against the laws of God. This is but a step in the direction of eventually giving the State control over the Church, which is like giving man control over God.

All attempts are correcting them are met with a false and fake humility, that publicly bows its head, but continues its evil agenda quietly behind the scenes. They take the Faith and pass it through the triple grinding-down of (1) Agnosticism, (2) Transfiguration of teachings, and (3) Disfiguration of teachings. Whatever remains standing after this process, is further worn-down by their interminable process of historico-criticism, which dives the history of the Faith into 'real' history that really happened, and 'intenal' history, that happened in the imagination and sentiments of the believers. This sets them up for the next stage of Apologetics, which is explaining and defending the Faith to the outside world. ]

Pope St. Pius X's encyclical continues as follows:

THE MODERNISTS AS AN APOLOGIST [96]

[ COMMENT 96 : See the sidebar to the left of this column for an explanation of what Apologetics really is. ]

§35. The Modernist apologist depends in two ways on the philosopher.

First, indirectly, inasmuch as his theme is history — history dictated, as we have seen, by the philosopher; and, secondly, directly, inasmuch as he takes both his laws and his principles from the philosopher. Hence that common precept of the Modernist school, that the new apologetics must be fed from psychological and historical sources. [97]

[ COMMENT 97 : Again—to repeat ad nauseam but it has to pointed out each time it raises its ugly head—this is a rejection of the supernatural motives for Faith, and basing them upon purely natural, subjective (what I feel) motives. ]

The Modernist apologists, then, enter the arena by proclaiming to the rationalists that, though they are defending religion, they have no intention of employing the data of the Sacred Books, or the histories in current use in the Church, and composed according to old methods, but real history, written on modern principles and according to rigorously modern methods. In all this they are not using an argumentum ad hominem, [98], but are stating the simple fact that they hold that the truth is to be found only in this kind of history [99]. They feel that it is not necessary for them to dwell on their own sincerity in their writings ― they are already known to and praised by the rationalists as fighting under the same banner, and they not only plume themselves on these encomiums, which are a kind of salary to them but would only provoke nausea in a real Catholic, but use them as an offset to the reprimands of the Church.

[ COMMENT : an "argumentum ad hominem" (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), or an argument "ad hominem", or just "ad hominem" for short―is an taking a line of argumentation in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. To perhaps oversimplify things, one could say that building an "ad hominem" argument is like trying to build with the leaves or twigs of a tree, rather than the wood taken from the trees more solid branches and trunk. ]

[ COMMENT 99 : History is, of course, one solid base for argumentation. But it is also, in part, a launch-pad or springboard to prove the supernatural and the miraculous―which, of course, the Modernist with his agnostic tendencies, either doubts or denies. Miracles are a part of history, but the Modernist will argue that since the miracle is beyond our understanding and is immeasurable, then it cannot be used as a part of history. To limit oneself to this kind of history alone and never to venture out of its boundaries, is like trying to do difficult work with only one hand. Strangely enough, science will tell us we must believe the "Big-Bang" theory and that we evolved from a monkey, yet it cannot show any conclusive proof of what is, in reality, a mere hypothesis. ]

But let us see how the Modernist conducts his apologetics. The aim he sets before himself is to make the non-believer attain that experience of the Catholic religion which, according to the system, is the basis of Faith. There are two ways open to him, the objective and the subjective.

The first of them proceeds from agnosticism. It tends to show that religion, and especially the Catholic religion, is endowed with such vitality, as to compel every psychologist and historian of good Faith to recognize that its history hides some unknown element. To this end it is necessary to prove that this religion, as it exists today, is that which was founded by Jesus Christ; that is to say, that it is the product of the progressive development of the germ which He brought into the world.

Hence it is imperative first of all to establish what this germ [or seed] was, and this the Modernist claims to be able to do by the following formula: Christ announced the coming of the kingdom of God, which was to be realized within a brief lapse of time and of which He was to become the Messias, the divinely-given agent and ordainer. Then it must be shown how this germ [seed], always immanent and permanent in the bosom of the Church, has gone on slowly developing in the course of history, adapting itself successively to the different mediums through which it has passed, borrowing from them by vital assimilation all the dogmatic, cultural, ecclesiastical forms that served its purpose; whilst, on the other hand, it surmounted all obstacles, vanquished all enemies, and survived all assaults and all combats.

Anybody who well and duly considers this mass of obstacles, adversaries, attacks, combats, and the vitality and fecundity which the Church has shown throughout them all, must admit that if the laws of evolution are visible in her life they fail to explain the whole of her history — the unknown rises forth from it and presents itself before us.

Thus do they argue, never suspecting that their determination of the primitive germ is an a priori of agnostic and evolutionist philosophy, and that the formula of it has been gratuitously invented for the sake of buttressing their position.

[97]

[ COMMENT 96 : ]