Extracted from Pope Pius X’s encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
Pope Pius X: the subjective reductionist view (excluding external supernatural realities) of religion inevitably leads to heresy ===> atheism
The whole original section is shown on top. Below parts of this encyclical will be separated and presented in a question/answer format. I will present the questions. The original encyclical content will be the answers
Background information:
For let us return for a moment, Venerable Brethren, to that most disastrous doctrine of agnosticism. By it every avenue that leads the intellect to God is barred, but the Modernists would seek to open others available for sentiment and action. Vain efforts! For, after all, what is sentiment but the reaction of the soul on the action of the intelligence or the senses. Take away the intelligence, and man, already inclined to follow the senses, becomes their slave. Vain, too, from another point of view, for all these fantasias on the religious sentiment will never be able to destroy common sense, and common sense tells us that emotion and everything that leads the heart captive proves a hindrance instead of a help to the discovery of truth. We speak, of course, of truth in itself – as for that other purely subjective truth, the fruit of sentiment and action, if it serves its purpose for the jugglery of words, it is of no use to the man who wants to know above all things whether outside himself there is a God into whose hands he is one day to fall. True, the Modernists do call in experience to eke out their system, but what does this experience add to sentiment? Absolutely nothing beyond a certain intensity and a proportionate deepening of the conviction of the reality of the object. But these two will never make sentiment into anything but sentiment, nor deprive it of its characteristic which is to cause deception when the intelligence is not there to guide it; on the contrary, they but confirm and aggravate this characteristic, for the more intense sentiment is the more it is sentimental. In matters of religious sentiment and religious experience, you know, Venerable Brethren, how necessary is prudence and how necessary, too, the science which directs prudence. You know it from your own dealings with sounds, and especially with souls in whom sentiment predominates; you know it also from your reading of ascetical books – books for which the Modernists have but little esteem, but which testify to a science and a solidity very different from theirs, and to a refinement and subtlety of observation of which the Modernists give no evidence. Is it not really folly, or at least sovereign imprudence, to trust oneself without control to Modernist experiences? Let us for a moment put the question: if experiences have so much value in their eyes, why do they not attach equal weight to the experience that thousands upon thousands of Catholics have that the Modernists are on the wrong road? It is, perchance, that all experiences except those felt by the Modernists are false and deceptive? The vast majority of mankind holds and always will hold firmly that sentiment and experience alone, when not enlightened and guided by reason, do not lead to the knowledge of God. What remains, then, but the annihilation of all religion, – atheism? Certainly it is not the doctrine of symbolism – will save us from this. For if all the intellectual elements, as they call them, of religion are pure symbols, will not the very name of God or of divine personality be also a symbol, and if this be admitted will not the personality of God become a matter of doubt and the way opened to Pantheism? And to Pantheism that other doctrine of the divine immanence leads directly. For does it, We ask, leave God distinct from man or not? If yes, in what does it differ from Catholic doctrine, and why reject external revelation? If no, we are at once in Pantheism. Now the doctrine of immanence in the Modernist acceptation holds and professes that every phenomenon of conscience proceeds from man as man. The rigorous conclusion from this is the identity of man with God, which means Pantheism. The same conclusion follows from the distinction Modernists make between science and faith. The object of science they say is the reality of the knowable; the object of faith, on the contrary, is the reality of the unknowable. Now what makes the unknowable unknowable is its disproportion with the intelligible – a disproportion which nothing whatever, even in the doctrine of the Modernist, can suppress. Hence the unknowable remains and will eternally remain unknowable to the believer as well as to the man of science. Therefore if any religion at all is possible it can only be the religion of an unknowable reality. And why this religion might not be that universal soul of the universe, of which a rationalist speaks, is something We do see. Certainly this suffices to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.
Why is agnosticism a disastrous doctrine? For let us return for a moment, Venerable Brethren, to that most disastrous doctrine of agnosticism. By it every avenue that leads the intellect to God is barred, but the Modernists would seek to open others available for sentiment and action. Vain efforts!
What is the sentiment? For, after all, what is sentiment but the reaction of the soul on the action of the intelligence or the senses.
What are the consequences of taking away one’s intelligence? Take away the intelligence, and man, already inclined to follow the senses, becomes their slave. Vain, too, from another point of view, for all these fantasias on the religious sentiment will never be able to destroy common sense,
What does common sense say? and common sense tells us that emotion and everything that leads the heart captive proves a hindrance instead of a help to the discovery of truth.
What does subjective truth reveal? We speak, of course, of truth in itself – as for that other purely subjective truth, the fruit of sentiment and action, if it serves its purpose for the jugglery of words, it is of no use to the man who wants to know above all things whether outside himself there is a God into whose hands he is one day to fall.
What does experience add? True, the Modernists do call in experience to eke out their system, but what does this experience add to sentiment? Absolutely nothing beyond a certain intensity and a proportionate deepening of the conviction of the reality of the object.
But why will sentiment and experience not add further clarity? But these two will never make sentiment into anything but sentiment, nor deprive it of its characteristic which is to cause deception when the intelligence is not there to guide it; on the contrary, they but confirm and aggravate this characteristic, for the more intense sentiment is the more it is sentimental.
Why is it necessary to have prudence when dealing with religious sentiment and religious experience? In matters of religious sentiment and religious experience, you know, Venerable Brethren, how necessary is prudence and how necessary, too, the science which directs prudence. You know it from your own dealings with sounds, and especially with souls in whom sentiment predominates; you know it also from your reading of ascetical books – books for which the Modernists have but little esteem, but which testify to a science and a solidity very different from theirs, and to a refinement and subtlety of observation of which the Modernists give no evidence. Is it not really folly, or at least sovereign imprudence, to trust oneself without control to Modernist experiences?
What are often the consequences of experiences regarding Modernists? Let us for a moment put the question: if experiences have so much value in their eyes, why do they not attach equal weight to the experience that thousands upon thousands of Catholics have that the Modernists are on the wrong road? It is, perchance, that all experiences except those felt by the Modernists are false and deceptive?
Why is sentiment and experience enlightened and guided by reason so very important? The vast majority of mankind holds and always will hold firmly that sentiment and experience alone, when not enlightened and guided by reason, do not lead to the knowledge of God.
What does sentiment and experience not guided by reason lead to? What remains, then, but the annihilation of all religion, – atheism?
What are consequences of religion becoming pure symbols? Certainly it is not the doctrine of symbolism – will save us from this. For if all the intellectual elements, as they call them, of religion are pure symbols, will not the very name of God or of divine personality be also a symbol
Why does this lead to pantheism? and if this be admitted will not the personality of God become a matter of doubt and the way opened to Pantheism?
What are the consequences of divine immanence (holding the presence the conscience of God in one’s human reason and the physical world? And to Pantheism that other doctrine of the divine immanence leads directly. For does it, We ask, leave God distinct from man or not?
How does this differ from Catholic doctrine which accepts external revelation? If yes, in what does it differ from Catholic doctrine, and why reject external revelation? If no, we are at once in Pantheism.
Through the doctrine of immanence, how does man view himself and the world? What does the doctrine of immanence Now the doctrine of immanence in the Modernist acceptation holds and professes that every phenomenon of conscience proceeds from man as man. The rigorous conclusion from this is the identity of man with God, which means Pantheism.
How do Modernists view faith? The same conclusion follows from the distinction Modernists make between science and faith. The object of science they say is the reality of the knowable; the object of faith, on the contrary, is the reality of the unknowable. Now what makes the unknowable unknowable is its disproportion with the intelligible – a disproportion which nothing whatever, even in the doctrine of the Modernist, can suppress.
How do Modernists view external outside supernatural reality? Hence the unknowable remains and will eternally remain unknowable to the believer as well as to the man of science.
How do Modernists view religion? Therefore if any religion at all is possible it can only be the religion of an unknowable reality. And why this religion might not be that universal soul of the universe, of which a rationalist speaks, is something We do see.
What are the consequences of the Modernists’ reductionist view of religion? Certainly this suffices to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.
Conclusion:
- Modernism starts from an attitude of agnosticism (the belief that the existence of God, the divine, and the supernatural are unknowable.)
- One’s sense of external supernatural realities of God is excluded from the person.
- Divine immanence: one’s perceptions, religious sentiments, and lived experiences of God are reduced (confined) to one’s human reason and the visible world.
- One’s religious experience and religious sentiment, without being scientifically tested, becomes very subjective.
- One’s perceived supernatural reality of God is flattened into the natural world.
- External revelation presumes the external supernatural distinct reality of God outside of creation. This is Catholic doctrine.
- The immanent nature of God presumes that distinct boundary between God and creation becomes blurred or erased.
- If God is not distinct(from creation), the consciousness of God will inevitably seep into creation.
- This inevitably leads to creation (the environment) becoming indistinct from God.
- Modernism’s subjective reductive view of religion inevitably leads to heresies and to atheism.
- The Vatican is now heading into this direction, commingling God with the environment (nature worship).
Creation/envioronment is now being assigned the qualities of God!
The Vatican is now talking about ecological worship, ecological sins, ecological spiritual reality, pantheism, eco-paganism, nature worship, equating creation with God, getting right with the environment to solve modern society’s malaise, social sin, the Mass is an ecological school in climate change, Eucharist encouraging ecological conversion
Ecological sins: ===> presumes sinning against creation (a created thing being elevated to God???)
One can only sin against God and man, NOT AGAINST A CREATED THING