Rorate Caeli

The enemies

Ongoing series

Why is Modernism such a grave heresy, why has its influence been so profound? There are objective motives for that: it is the "synthesis of all heresies". Yet, its imprint in the history of the Church in the 20th century (and also in the present century...) is mostly related to the Modernists themselves and to their shameless use of the traditional ecclesiastical structures and offices to further their views and widen the number of their followers. As we prepare for the Centennial Year of the great Encyclical, let us recall the warnings of Pope Saint Pius:

... 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, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear.

We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, 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; 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.

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. 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.

...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 skilful, 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. ...

8 comments:

humboldt said...

The greatest paradox is that being the Catholic Church a society for the education of its member in becoming "saintly" persons, it has been the vehicle through which anti-human values have spread. Definetely the modernist philosophy is one of the most pernicious, if not the most pernicious, of philosofies, because it attacks basic human values. How can this paradox be tolerated? How can clergy with such opposite beliefs as modernists and traditionalists, co-exist in the Catholic Church? To me it is incomprehensible from any point of view, call it logical or evangelical. The most ironic thing is that in many non-catholic christian communities, even though they have errors in their theology, one can live a better experience of what christianism is. What good does it do to my soul if one's theology is more logical and evangelical, if one cannot live the basic tenants of christian charity? I think that I would rather live in doctrinal error, but in perfect charity. I think that to many people the culture of the Catholic Church is pernicious to their souls. One can see this evidenced in the lifes of so many "devilish" clerics: cardinals and the like. AMDG.

Simon-Peter said...

With particular reference to the post-"reformation" and post Second Vatican Council indult practice of communion standing and in the hand let us apply:

Proposition number 24., Lamentabili Sane (Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists), Pope SAINT Pius X, July 3rd 1907.

[Proposition]
24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves.
[CONDEMNED]

This could be re-written thus:

[Proposition]
The Catholic who behaves in a manner from which it follows that dogmas [e.g. the Substantial Presence] are actually falsehoods OR DOUBTFUL is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly [e.g. by jumping all over a consecrated Host]deny the dogmas themselves.
[CONDEMNED]

Now Pascendi:

"...many who belong to the Catholic laity...feigning a love for the Church...thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty...not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man...with their tenets, their manner of speech, their conduct...they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires...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...in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the parts of rationalist and Catholic...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...

One day the practice of Catholics standing in line like they were at Bojangles waiting for an egg & cheese biscuit wil end, and lay Catholics thrusting themselves forward to "distribute" the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar will cease.

Hebdomadary said...

On a related topic, modernism and liturgical orthodoxy, I just posted a reply to Fr. Leary under the entry on the French Manifesto. I thought some of you might find it interesting. I tried not to be too fierce or offensive, really, and hope I succeeded.

humboldt said...

What is the logic behind the practice (post-Vatican II) of the Catholic Church to signify one thing in Latin and another in vernacular language, as the case of the "pro multis" has recently indicated? Does any know why the Church has been doing this? It is just incomprehensible to me. AMDG.

humboldt said...

To me, this practice seems like lying to me. AMDG.

MacK said...

Modernism has certainly found immense avenues of expression in the post-conciliar NO establishment. Collegiality, religious liberty, obsessional ecumenical malpractice and the illusory interfaith imperative are still actively corroding the faith. For example, Latin & Central America become increasingly protestant by the day.

Correcting the liturgy is one step in the right direction, if the "Motu Proprio" happens. However, there is the problematic question of restoring doctrinal orthodoxy which is, of course, where Pope St Pius X was so astute. What a terrible pity Paul (RIP) VI undid most of this genuinely great pope's truly magnificent work protecting and propagating the Roman Catholic Faith - the only true faith established by Our Blessed Lord for the salvation of humankind.

humboldt said...

To me Pope Paul VI is both a tragedy and a scandal. It is impossible for me to understand why he let things go they way did. No wonder I have read so many horrible things being said of him; because he basically failed. He has no excuse. Indeed if the liberalization of the Tridentine Mass ocurrs it will not solve everything automotically, but it is a needed first step, without which there cannot be true progress and purification in the Church. There are still inmense challanges to confront in the Church, especially at the level of the education of the priests, the way of choosing new and "catholic" bishops and to practice a real "catholic" culture in the church, and the living of a healthy catholic "religious freedom" in the clergy, which is not the case now. Currently this is the area where the clergy is most contaminated: what is the catholic relation between freedom and faith for the clergy. AMDG.

MacK said...

For the Christian, St Paul is completely lucid in his definition of freedom & liberty under and from the law of God. I hope the Holy Father was truly sincere in his appeal to this great saint and his divinely inspired writings, the other day. It is time to put obedience back in an authentic Catholic context, rather than the false un-Catholic nonsense made out of it today. It has become associated with the very worst in episcopal despotism. This might help restore real decorum in public worship, for example, as St Paul has expressed Our Blessed Saviour's intentions. It is glaringly contradictory under the post-conciliarist regime, being almost entirely un-Scriptural and un-Traditional and most conclusively un-Catholic.