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. 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.
Can it be assumed that faith and science are independent of one another? No. On the science side, the independence is complete.
What is on the side of faith? When you remove the divine reality, religious experience of it, and the religious formulas, this aspect now belongs to the sphere of phenomena. This aspect now falls under the control of silence.
What can be concluded when it is said that God is the object of faith alone? This statement only refers to the divine reality, but not to the idea of God.
What is the idea of God? The idea of God is subject to science. It is the right of philosophy and of science to form conclusions concerning the idea God. This entails the need to direct it in its evolution. This entail the means to purify any of its elements which may become confused with it. The believer feels within him an impelling need to harmonize faith with science.
MS: For the Modernist, one’s perception of God is framed up within philosophy, science, and history. This provides a flawed and incomplete picture of God. This impels the need to contemplate within himself the nature of God and religion.
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.
What do the Modernists believe? They believe that science is to be entirely independent of faith. Faith is made subject to science.
What does Pope Pius IX state about what philosophy? In matters of religion, it is the duty of philosophy to serve what is believed, to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience. It is the duty of philosophy to venerate matters of religion devoutly and humbly.
MS: In this post-Christian secular world, the Church’s teachings must not impose itself on one’s beliefs and rights. The Church’s teaching must not impose itself on same-sex marriages, gender ideology, homosexuality, and lived experiences. These peoples’ truths cannot and must not be subjugated by the Church. The Synod of Synodalities proposes that the laity and clergy share in decision making. The German Synod proposes that the laity have decision making authority in the selection of bishops. This German Synod proposes that homosexuality will be permitted. At the end of the day, worldly values and sin will creep into the Church.
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 rationals, 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.
What does Pope Gregory IX state about the Modernists? Modernists inflate (like bladders) the spirit of vanity by profane novelties. Modernists use these novelties to cross boundaries fixed by the Fathers. Modernists twist sense the sense of the heavenly pages to the philosophical teaching of the rationals.
MS: Pope Francis’ papacy continues to create and develop new human traditions, novelties, and innovations into the Church, creating more and more confusion and chaos. With vanity and pride, Pope Francis states is remaking Jesus’ Church into a worldly synodal Church in the image of man. It is very significant to point out that Pope Gregory IX, who reigned during 1227-1241, warned us about strange and eccentric doctrines (human innovations and novelties). Pope Francis’ papacy has been synonymous with human traditions and novelties.
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 unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. 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. 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. 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 should they be rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. 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.
What do Modernists frequently advocate? They frequency advocate one doctrine now so that another can be disposed (as vague or doubtful).
Why do Modernists do this? It is found in their notion of the separation of science and faith. They draw distinctions between theological (and pastoral) exegesis and scientific (and historical) exegesis. They act on the principle that science in no way depends on faith.
What are the consequences of the Modernists’ notion that faith must be subject to science? The criticize the Church for its obstinacy in refusing to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy. They endeavor to introduce a new theology to follow the vagaries (inexplicable changes) of their philosophies.
MS: For the Modernist, doctrines are frequently subject to change by philosophy, science, and history. Therefore, doctrines and dogma are subject to change. In Pope Francis’ papacy, there seems to be greater focus on the sins of the world (ecology, global warming, etc.) rather than the sins of man. Under Pope Francis’ leadership, the Vatican appears more like a United Nations NGO rather than a church in the business of saving souls. The notion of sin, forgiveness, and conversion of heart are now being overshadowed by mercy above all else, tolerance, and false compassion.
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. 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. 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. 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 once reveals and conceals, that is to say, endeavors to express but without succeeding in doing so. They 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. 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.
Moderinists as theologian:
What do Modernists seek to accomplish? They seek conciliation of faith with science. Science has primacy over faith. The Modernist theologian uses the same principles employed by the Modernist philosopher. The principles of immanence and symbolism is applied to the believer.
What does the Modernist philosopher declare? The principle of faith is immanent in man. The representations of the object of faith are merely symbolical.
What does the Modernist’s theologian declare? The principle of God is immanent in man. This principle is God. The representation of the divine reality are symbolical. Thus we have theological immanence.
What is symbolism? Symbols are but symbols in regard to their objects and only instruments in regard to the believer. It is necessary 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 once reveals and conceals. This endeavors to express but without succeeding in doing so. They would also have the believer avail himself of the formulas only in as far as they are useful to him.
What is immanence? Some understand it in the sense that God working in man is more intimately present in him than man is in even himself. This conception is free from reproach. Others hold that the divine action is one with the action of nature (which is one the action of the secondary cause). Other say it is of pantheism.
MS: The Modernist seeks to reconcile science and faith, but with science having primacy. Immanence (the sense of God and faith working in man) reduces dogma to something optional, which can be accepted or rejected at the subjective whim of the individual. This dogma would be easily changed.
20. With this principle of immanence is connected another 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. 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. 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.
What is divine permanence? Private experience differs from the experience transmitted by tradition.
Dogma and the Sacraments
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
What are the shoots (end results) of faith? The Church, dogma, worship, Sacred Books.
Where is dogma born inside the Modernist? It 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 to himself and others.
How is doctrine elaborated (created)? This is the process of penetrating and refining the primitive formula, as required by circumstances. Secondary formulas continue to be formed. These are subsequently grouped into bodies of doctrine or doctrinal constructions. This is a response to the common consciousness.
What is theological speculation? They have utility as serving to harmonize religion with science and to remove opposition between the two. This may provide grounds to prepare for future dogma.
Why do Modernists fall into grave errors when pertaining to the Sacraments? The Sacraments are the resultant of a double need. Everything in their Modernist system is explain by inner impulses and necessities. The first need is that of giving some sensible manifestation to religion. The second need is that of propagating it, which could not be done without some sensible form and consecrating acts.
How do Modernists view the Sacraments? Sacraments are mere symbols or signs, having a certain efficacy which have caught on. They have become the vehicle for certain great ideas which strike the public mind. The Sacraments are the religious sentiment. Sacrament are instituted solely to foster the faith.
What does the Council of Trent say about this Modernist notion of sacraments solely instituted to foster the faith? Let him be anathema (Let him be condemned).
MS: The Modernist holds that sacraments were instituted to foster faith, which runs counter to the Council of Trent. One can only wonder if this provides the basis (mercy, outreach) for Pope Francis’ encyclical Amoris Laetitia for changing, loosening, or watering down the requirements for receiving the sacrament. Pope Francis is perhaps considering the necessities of extending these sacraments to others.
Vatican II naive efforts to “bring some fresh air into the Church” has actually lead to a pastoral and theological disaster. Liturgical sacrilege, declining vocations, diminished catechesis, and Novus Order Masses with declining attendance have followed. Now Pope Francis is shutting down the Traditional Latin Mass where Catholic attendance is thriving. There is increasing lack of Mass attendance and decreasing belief in the Real Presence of the Eucharist among Catholic.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
How do Modernists view Sacred Books? According to Modernist principles, they may be rightly described as a collection of experiences which have happened in any religion. Experience is something belonging to the present. It may derives its material from the past, inasmuch the believer by memory lives the past over again in the manner of the present. One can live the future already by anticipation.
How does God speak in these books? God speaks through the medium of the believer by vital immanence and permanence.
What is inspiration? Inspiration is distinguished is only the strong feeling from the impulse that stimulates the believer to reveal the faith that is in him by words or writing.
How does inspiration occur? There is God in us. When He stirs us, He sets us afire. God is said to be the origin of the inspiration of the Sacred Books.
How is the bible views by the tenets of agnosticism? The Bible is a human work, made by men for men. Agnosticism allows the theologian to proclaim that the Bible is divine my immanence. This is a form of general inspiration. There is no trace of inspiration in the Catholic sense.
MS: For the Modernist, experience is something belonging to the present. God does not speak in scripture, but God speaks always by virtue of His being immanent in the author (like the Modernist). Inspiration is nothing more than a powerful poetic stirring of the soul. God’s authorship ends with the imparting of this impulse to communicate that stirring. Inspiration ultimately does not mean what the Church means. Quite frequently, Pope Francis and his inner circle often create confusion and chaos in their writings or actions which seemingly stray from Church teachings. Yet, Pope Francis continually provides a rationalization (based on ones’ experience) for his motives. A Church following ancient Tradition is like an old relic or fossil. Therefore, the Church must be renewed.
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. 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.
How do Modernists view the Church? The Church has its birth in a double need. The first need is the need of the individual believer, having some original and special experience, to communicate his faith to others. The second need is the need of the mass to form itself in a society and to guard, increase and propagate the common good.
What is the Modernists’ perception of the Church? It is the product of the collective conscience of the society of individual conscience. By the principle of vital permanence, all depend on one first believer (Christ). Every society needs a directing authority to guide its members toward the common end. This prudently conserves the elements of cohesion (doctrine and worship) in a religious society.
MS: The Modernist holds that the Church is the product of the collective conscious of all believers. The threefold authority of the Church (pastoral, magisterial, and sacerdotal) derives not directly from God, but from the consent of all believers. If the laity demands democratic governance, the Church must democratize. The Synod of Synodalities planners are actually making efforts to allow greater laity participation in decision making. The German Synod are seeking for the laity have influence on the selection of the bishops. These Modernist views only seek to undermine the authority of the Church.
Hence the triple authority in the Catholic Church, disciplinary, dogmatic, liturgical. 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. 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. 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.
What are the sources of authority in the Catholic Church? Discipline, dogma, and liturgy. The nature of this authority is gathered from its origin. Its rights and duties comes from its nature.
What was considered a past viewpoint toward the Church? It was a common error that authority came to the Church from without (directly from God). It was thought to rightly held as autocratic. This perception has become obsolete.
What is the Modernist perception of the Church? The Modernist holds the Church to be vital emanation (product) of the collective consciences of all believers. So this is where authority emanates in the Church. Authority has its origin in the religious conscience and authority is subject to it. To disown this dependence invites tyranny
What is the kind of age we are currently living in? We are living in an age when the sense of liberty has reached its fullest development. The public conscience has introduced popular government.
How does this apply to the Church? Ecclesiastical authority must shape itself to democratic forms, unless it wishes to provoke unrest and conflict in the consciences of mankind. The penalty of refusing to do this is disaster. It is madness that the sentiment of liberty must surrender.
What is the primary motivation for Modernists? To find a way of conciliation between the authority of the Church and the liberty of believers.
MS: Pope Francis has quite frequently spoken of the Church magisterium as ancient, old fashioned, and rigid, in need of change. Pope Francis often speaks of the scandal of the traditional priest in his cassock as a scandal. Therefore, many aspects of the Church must be changed or renewed. Yet, in their attempts to “renew” the Church, they are actually tearing it down. Pope Francis refers to the need to de-masculinize the Church. Yet, they often forget or ignore that the Church is the Bride of Christ! This opens the door for women to potentially become homolists, deaconesses, or priests. Rather than seeing these roles as vocations, they are seeing these roles as jobs that women could potentially fill. Then this becomes a fairness (women’s rights) issue. Perhaps, most importantly, this undermines the notion that the priest stands in the person of Christ (in persona Christi). Theological doctrine then takes a back seat to gender rights. This is how a Modernist thinks.
These efforts to allow laity decision-making authority will ultimately change the authority structure of the Church. More worldly values and sin will creep into the Church. This will also inevitably allow changes in Church teachings, responsive to the laity’s concerns and desires. In other words, the Church must change its “harsh and rigid teachings” against the LGBTQ community.
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. 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 his doctrine is today repudiated alike by philosophy and history. The State must, therefore, be separated from the Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. 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. 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.
What is the relationship between the Church and the state? The Church does not occupy the world all by itself. The Church must necessarily have contact and relationships with the world (state). The rights and duties of the church toward civil society must therefor be determined by its own nature. The Church is of the spiritual realm. The State is of the temporal realm.
What has been the traditional understanding of the Church’s role? It was possible to subordinate the temporal to the spiritual, recognizing the Church as having been instituted by God (author of the supernatural order).
How is this doctrine being repudiated? By philosophy and history. The State must be separated from the Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. Every Catholic person 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. The Catholic person need not concern himself with its wishes, councils, orders and reprimands. To do otherwise is to be guilty of its ecclesiastical authority.
Have these Modernist principles been condemned? Yes, by Pius VI
MS: According to the Modernist, the individual must not be bound or hindered by Catholic authority (or teaching). To do otherwise would be perceived as an abuse of authority. Pope Francis has often claimed that the Lord will save everyone. Pope Francis also posed the idea of hell being empty. These beliefs refer to the heresy of universalism in which all humankind will eventually be saved. Perhaps, this provides the motivation for Pope stressing the notion of mercy above all else and de-emphasizing the notion of sinning no more. This perhaps also provides the basis for Pope Francis’ desires in Amoris Laetitia.
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 for instance as the administration or reception of the sacraments, these will fall under the control of 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. 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. 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. From the combination and, as it were fusion of these two elements, the common mind 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. 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. 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. 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.
What is the Modernist perspective on the relationship of The Church and the State? As faith is to be subordinated to science, the Church must be subject to the State in temporal matters. In temporal matter, the State possessed absolute master.
What can be consequences of this? Even such external acts (administration or reception of the sacraments) could potentially fall under the control of the State. This inevitable consequence impels many among liberal Protestants to reject all external worship, religious communities. This may make others call for individual religion.
What is the Modernist teachings on doctrinal and dogmatic authority? No religious society can be a real unit unless the religious consciousness of its members be one (unified) and also one (unified) on the formula which they adopt. This double unity requires a common mind whos office is to find and determine that corresponds best with the common conscience. Therefore it must have an authority sufficient to enable it to impose on the community the formula which has been decided upon.
What is the Modernist ecclesiastical magisterium? A common mind creates a common formula which is to be implemented. This ecclesiastical magisterium must be subordinate to the common formula. The ecclesiastical magisterium takes on democratic forms.
What is the consequence of preventing or criticizing individual consciences from freely and openly revealing their impulses? This becomes an abuse of power. To condemn and prescribe one’s work summarily borders on tyranny.
What do Modernists seek for the Church? Since 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.
What do Modernist forget? They forget that religion is essentially for the soul. Yet is not exclusively for the soul. Honor must be paid to authority that is reflected back on Jesus Christ who instituted it.
MS: It seems that Vatican (and Pope Francis) are more concerned about global warming and the environment (sins of the world) rather than individuals mortal souls (sins of man). The Vatican seems more like an NGO rather than a Church leading souls to heaven.
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. 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. 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. Having laid down this law of evolution, the Modernists themselves teach us how it works out. 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 accretion of new and purely adventitious forms from without, but by an increasing penetration of the religious sentiment in the conscience. This progress was of two kinds: negative, by the elimination of all foreign elements, such, for example, as the sentiment of family or nationality; and positive by the intellectual and moral refining of man, by means of which the idea was enlarged and enlightened while the religious sentiment became more elevated and more intense. For the progress of faith no other causes are to be assigned than those which are adduced to explain its origin. But to them must be added those religious geniuses whom we call prophets, and 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 fully in harmony with the needs of their time. The progress of dogma is due chiefly to the obstacles which faith has to surmount, to the enemies it has to vanquish, to the contradictions it has to repel. Add to this a perpetual striving to penetrate ever more profoundly its own mysteries. Thus, to omit other examples, has it happened in the case of Christ: in Him that divine something which faith admitted in Him expanded in such a way that He was at last held to be God. The chief stimulus of evolution in the domain of worship consists in the need of adapting itself to the uses and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by long usage. Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of accommodating itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society. Such is religious evolution in detail. And here, before proceeding further, we would have you note well this whole theory of necessities and needs, for it is at the root of the entire system of the Modernists, and it is upon it that they will erect that famous method of theirs called the historical.
What do Modernist say about the development of doctrine? In a living religion, everything is subject to change and must change. This includes dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred.
How do Modernists view faith? The primitive form of faith rudimentary and common to all men alike. Faith had its origin in human nature and human life. Vital evolution with it progress by an increasing penetration (pressure) of the religious sentiment in the conscience.
What is this negative pressure? Eliminating foreign elements, family sentiment, and nationality.
What is this positive pressure? Intellectual and moral refining of man. The idea was enlarged and enlightened while the religious sentiment becomes more elevated and intense. This applies to religious geniuses whom we are called prophets. But it fell to their lot to have new and original experiences fully in harmony with the needs of their time.
What is the progress of dogma due to? It is due chiefly to the obstacles which faith has to surmount, to the enemies it has to vanquish, and to the contradiction it has to repel. This also included a perpetual striving to penetrate profoundly its own mysteries.
What is the chief stimulus for the evolution in worship? This consists in the need of adapting itself to the uses and customs of people.
What is the evolution in the Church fed by? It is fed by the need of accommodating itself to historical conditions and for harmonizing itself with existing forms of society. The theory of necessities and needs is at the root of the entire system of the Modernists. Upon this, they erect this historical model.
MS: As Pope Francis often perceives the Church’s magisterium as ancient, rigid, and outdated, doctrine must adapt to a living religion. Faith is a response to human nature but not a response to God’s call. If liturgy is to remain relevant, it must be adapted and modified to the customs and culture of the people who celebrate it. Pope Francis has stated that the Church and theology must change. Traditional practices are outdated for the current culture. Therefore, the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) must be restricted and later removed. Those who favor the TLM must be “educated” in order to accept the Novus Order Mass. Unfortunately, as a result of Vatican II’s naive desire to “bring some fresh air into the Church, Modernist ideology has flooded into the Church.
Pope Francis has shown a consistent pattern of action in how he enacts reform in the Church. Essentially, Pope Francis initiates his actions in a piece-meal manner in order to get to his desired end point. Pope Francis will deliberately take a seemingly moderate position (by comparison to others) who have taken a more extreme position. Pope Francis’ relationship with the German bishops are illustrative examples. This is quite evident in his stated positions in comparison to the German bishops’ positions. Pope Francis criticizes the German bishops not necessarily for the positions they have taken. Rather, Pope Francis criticizes the German bishops for moving too fast in getting to get there. In other words, Pope Francis states that the German bishops need to “slow-walk” this process in order for it to be publicly accepted by the people.
Pope Francis and his inner circle are intentional in their outreach to the LGBT community. Yet the Vatican has continued to deal with the reality of the Church’s teachings against same-sex unions. Homosexuality is officially declared as a sinful behavior. How can this barrier to homosexuality be overcome? Pope Francis recently declared that a new paradigm shift in Catholic thinking is needed based on the new cultural transformations. The culture now accepts same-sex unions as a recognized family relationship. In the document Fiducia Supplicans, there is no mention of seeking repentance from the sinful behavior of homosexuality and same-sex unions. A very telling point is that same-sex unions are referred to as ‘irregular relationships”. These non-liturgical blessings become the starting point for these “irregular couples”. It is very evident that the Vatican (and Pope Francis) have every intention of changing Church teachings to accommodate the LGBTQ community. The Vatican is playing the “long game” in accomplishing this.
27. 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. 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.
How do Modernists view evolution? Evolution is described as resulting from the conflict of two forces. One force tends toward progress. The other tends towards conservation.
What is tradition? It is the conserving force in the Church. Tradition is represented by religious authority. This notion is both by right and in fact. By right is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition.
What is this progressive force? This force, which responds to the inner needs, lies in the individual conscience and ferments there.
How does evolutionary change and advantage take place? There is a species of compromise between the forces of conservation (authority) and progress (individual consciences). The individual consciences of some of them act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure on authority. This forces authority to consent to a compromise or pact made.
MS: Pope Francis quite often speaks of Tradition and traditional Church teachings in a negative way. This inner collective conscience continues to pit itself with Traditional ways. Pope Francis believes the Church must reform itself in becoming a synodal Church who walks with the person.
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. 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 it remains deaf to their warnings, because delay multiplies the obstacles which impede the progress of souls, but the hour will most surely come when there will be no further chance for tergiversation, for if the laws of evolution may be checked for a while, they cannot be ultimately destroyed. 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.
The psychological mind of the Modernist:
Why are Modernists express astonishment when reprimanded or punished? Modernist see their acts as a sacred duty. Modernists do not see this as a fault.
What is the Modernist’s motivation? Being in intimate contact with consciences, they know better than anybody else. The Modernists certainly think they know better than the ecclesiastical authority. Modernists see this as their duty. They believe with certainty they deserve praise but not blame. After all, there is no progress without a battle. There is no battle without its victims. Victims are willing to be prophets for their cause. They have no bitterness in their hearts against authority. This is their duty as Modernists.
How do Modernists view their setbacks? Their sole grief is remains deaf to their warnings. These delays multiply the obstacles which impede progress. While still in defeat, the Modernists are more intent than ever on carrying out their purposes.
How do Modernist achieve their objectives? It remains necessary for authority to be challenged (stimulated) but not dethroned. It is necessary for Modernist to remain within the ranks of the Church in order that they may gradually transform the collective conscience. The Modernist have the right to claim to be its interpreters.
MS: The division in the Church is aptly presented as a conflict between Modern (and progressive) Catholics and traditional (and conservative) Catholics. Progressives and the secular society typically frame traditional (conservative) Catholics in political terms: “right-wing”. The Magisterium is perceived as conservative. The laity is perceived as progressives pitted against the Church itself. The Modernist assumes the need to correct and reform the hierarchy. The Modernist (Progressive) is shocked when rebuked by opposition. Modernists are compelled to speak the “truth” of the collective conscience. The Vatican (and Pope Francis) have a whole legion of “pope-splainers” available to defend and propagandize Modernist policies within the Church and in the secular world. Pope Francis, being known for causing confusion and chaos, laughably criticizes his opponents for being “divisive”.
The Modernists perceive their efforts to be of a high-minded and noble purpose. Modernists recognize that needed reform and changes can only accomplished when in positions of power. Pope Francis is taking upon himself every opportunity to enact Modernist ideology. Pope Francis, perhaps recognizing that he has just a few years of living, continues to energetically and recklessly implement his Modernist practices. Pope Francis and his inner circle are already implementing measures to potentially unofficially designate his successor (like a Pope Francis II)!
28. Thus then, Venerable Brethren, for the Modernists, both as authors and propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor indeed are they without precursors in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our Predecessor Pius IX wrote: These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts. On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new – we find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX., where it is enunciated in these terms: Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence the sense, too, of the sacred dogmas is that which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth. Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, impeded by this pronouncement – on the contrary it is aided and promoted. For the same Council continues: Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries – but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.
How do the Modernists view the Church? There is nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church.
What did Pope Pius IX say about the Modernists? Pertaining to divine revelation, Modernists were extolling human progress to the skies. Modernists, with rash and sacrilegious daring, would have introduced new revelation as if this religion was the work of man, not of God. There can be some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.
Why do Modernists offer nothing new in revelation and dogma? Modernists are condemned by Pius IX for stating that divine revelation is imperfect and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason.
What does Vatican I say about doctrine? The doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to be perfected by human intelligences. This doctrine is a divine deposit entrusted to the Church to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted.
MS: Pope Francis continually claims that the Church and theology must change. Pope Francis intentionally or unintentionally allowed or permitted sacrilege in worship and liturgy. A Panchamama fertility idol was allowed in a liturgical celebration on the Vatican grounds. The Vatican has permitted Anglican liturgies in the Vatican cathedrals. Pope Francis is seeking advice from Anglican women priests in how to set up the process for allowing deaconesses and potentially women priests. These practices are undermining traditions and practices of Jesus’ Church. Modernists believe that they must reform, modernize, and perfect the Church. Pope Francis and his fellow Modernists believe that divine deposit faith is insufficient and must be adapted to the current times.
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. This will be patent to anybody who reflects. Their three first laws are contained in those three principles of their philosophy already dealt with: the principle of agnosticism, the principle of the transfiguration of things by faith, and the principle which We have called of disfiguration. Let us see what consequences flow from each of them. Agnosticism tells us that history, like ever 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. 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. 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. 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 affect 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.
Modernist as historian and critic:
Why are Modernists reluctant about being called philosophers? Modernists are reluctant to be seen having philosophical theories which would lay them open to the charge of not being objective. However, the truth is that their history and criticism are saturated with their philosophy. Their historical-critical conclusion are the natural fruit of their philosophical principles. This is patent to anyone who reflects
MS: When Modernists exclude and reject objective moral truth and rely on their subjective experience, then how can they be objective? It is simply not possible. They continually have an instinctive and subjective need to change and reform the Church.
What three laws are contained in those three principles of their philosophy? Agnosticism, transfiguration, and disfiguration.
Agnosticism:
What does agnosticism tell us? History, like every other science, deals entirely with phenomena. The consequence is that God and every intervention of God in human affairs are to be relegated to the domain of faith.
What are things with a double element? The divine and the human mingle. Such examples include Christ, the Church, the sacraments. A division must be made. The human element is assigned to history. The divine element goes to faith.
What is the consequences of this? There is a distinction between the Christ of history and the Christ of faith, between the sacraments of history and the sacraments of faith
MS: History, only dealing with subjective phenomena, must be remain neutral with regard to God’s intervention in human history.
Transfiguration:
What is transfiguration? The human element has been raised above its historical condition. Therefore, it is necessary to eliminate the accretions (growth or increase) which faith has added. One must assign them to faith itself and to the history of faith. Transfiguration involves supernatural realities and non-naturalistic attributes.
What is the task of the historian? The historian must set aside all that surpasses man in his natural condition, according to the psychological perception of him or according to the period or place of his existence.
MS: Historical figures must be stripped of all supernatural realities. This transfiguration distorts the historical character.
Disfiguration:
What is disfiguration? Disfiguration pertains to those things outside the sphere of history and relegated to faith, which are not in harmony with the character with the persons. They will not allow those things that Christ uttered to outside this natural realm. They delete Jesus’ real history and transfer to faith all the allegories found in His discourses.
What does this accomplish? 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. This comes from subjective material.
What is their method? They put themselves into the position and person of Christ, and then attribute to Him what they would have done under like circumstances. They proclaim that Christ, according to what they call His real story, was not God and never did anything divine. As man He did and said only what they, judging from the in which he live, can admit Him to have said or done.
MS: Transfiguration refers to all those non-naturalistic attributes of historical figures. This disfiguration also distorts the historical character.
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 above described go to form the real history; the rest is attributed to the history of the faith or as it is styled, to internal history. 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.
What does the critic do with history? The critic devises two histories: real history and internal history. This produces a double Christ: a real Christ, and a Christ, the one of faith, who never really existed.
What is internal history? This is history of the faith. This produces a Christ, one of faith, who never really existed. This is a Christ who never lived outside the pious meditations of the believer. This is the Christ whom we find in John’s gospel.
What is real history? This is history outside of faith. This is a Christ who has lived at a given time and place.
32. But the dominion of philosophy over history does not end here. Given that division, of which We have spoken, of 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 ante-date the need which produced it – historically the fact must be posterior to the need. 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. 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.
How does the philosopher view history? The philosopher uses the principle of vital immanence and shows how everything in the history of the Church is to be explained by vital emanation. Since the cause or condition of every vital emanation is to be found in some need. (vital emanation–>need). It follows that the need cannot precede the cause or condition (need before vital emanation).
How does the historian work from this principle? The historian draws up a list of successive needs, whether relating to dogma or liturgy. He then hand his list over to the critic
How does the critic work from this principle? The critic is always guided by the principle that the narration must follow the facts, as the facts follow the needs. he follows the rule that the age of any document can only be determined by the age in which the need manifested itself in the Church. A distinction must be made between the beginning of a fact and its development. For what is born requires for growth. The critics must further divide these documents, separating the the first stage of the fact with their development.
MS: The Modernist perceives that faith is always a reaction to some internal need found in man.
Need: The Church felt the need to distinguish itself from the Jews on matters of the law==> What appears in scripture: everything Jesus said in opposition to the Pharisees about the law.
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. 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 (Rom. i. 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.
What is the criticism against the critics and historians’ methods? They take on the mantle of the philosopher. From beginning to end everything in is a priori, a theoretical deduction, rather than an empirical observation, that reeks of heresy. They are accusing the Church of something for which their own conscience plainly reproaches them.
How the Bible is Dealt With
34. The result of this dismembering of the Sacred Books and this partition of them throughout the centuries is naturally that the Scriptures can no longer be attributed to the authors whose names they bear. The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming commonly that these books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed by additions to a primitive brief narration – by interpolations of theological or allegorical interpretation, by transitions, by joining different passages together. This means, briefly, that in the Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding with evolution of faith. The traces of this evolution, they tell us, are so visible in the books that one might almost write a history of them. Indeed this history they do actually write, and with such an easy security that one might believe them to have with their own eyes seen the writers at work through the ages amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this they call to their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, and labor to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, and adducing other arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their decision as to whether a thing is out of place or not. Judge if you can how men with such a system are fitted for practicing this kind of criticism. To hear them talk about their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the pages of Scripture, whereas the truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding imperfections in them, have thanked God more and more the deeper they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately, these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for their guide and rule, – a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves.
