THE ENCYCLICAL
...OF...
LJ
Holiness Pius X
...ON..
The Doctrines of the Modernists
B;T
128
J8
3 L C
Latin Text and English Version
With Annotations
By
Thomas E. Judge, D.D,
INTRODUCTION
A deplorable and dishonorable tendency common enough
in every age of the history of Christianity, but especially
conspicuous at the present hour, leads certain minds to avow
loudly their allegiance to the Catholic Church and to parade
their professions of loyalty to her institutions in order that
they may the more effectively rend her unity by heresy and
schism. They may not all be equally conscious of the drift
of their agitation or of the depth and dangers of their
treason. Carried away by their enthusiasm for mistaken
methods of reform, held in bondage by their subserviency to
false systems of philosophy, viewing history and institutions
in the warm glow of sentiment and emotion instead of in
the cold, white light of intelligence, they are tossed about
by every wind of doctrine, after having cast to the waves
the guidance, of reason, authority and tradition. Their
books and pamphlets are generally written in a captivating
style, because most of their statements derive substance,
form and color from incandescent imaginations and are
confessedly exempted from conforming to the laws either of
inductive or deductive logic.
It has been well said that while God in the beginning
created men in His image, men now create Him in their
image. The Modernists conception of Him, His attributes
and our relations to Him are a factitious product, a sort
of Stromata, to borrow the title of one of Clement of Alex
andria s works, formed out of the most heterogeneous philo
sophical theories. The idea of Contingency associated with
the name of M. Boutrox, Herbert Spencer s Relativity,
Newman s principle of Development, Loisy s Kenotic hypo
thesis, the Pragmatism of Professor James and Blondel s
Philosophy of Action are blended together in a manner that
recalls the ingredients of the caldron by which the witches
foretold the fortunes of Macbeth in the cave on the blasted
heath.
But the unifying, controlling and organizing principle of
i v INTRODUCTION
their system is to be sought in Kant s teaching concerning
the limitations of Our Reason and the authority of Con
science. The following passage, written more than four
years ago by the Rev. William Turner, S. T. D., in his
"History of Philosophy," exactly describes the dependence
of Modernism on the Critical Philosophy of Immanuel
Kant:
"Kant s influence on the development of thought in the
nineteenth century can hardly be overestimated. This
philosophy is, as it were, the watershed from which streams
of thought flow down in various courses into modern ideal
ism, agnosticism, and even materialism. To this source
may also be traced some of the most noteworthy currents
of contemporary religious thought, especially the movement
toward non-dogmatic Christianity; for it is not difficult to
see in Kant s assertion of the supremacy of the moral law
the origin of the tendency to regard Christianity more as
a system of ethics and less as a system of dogmatic truth."
No other German, not even Goethe, has exercised such
influence at home and abroad on the current of religious
and metaphysical speculation since the publication of his
three famous critiques of Pure Reason, of Practical Reason
and of Judgment as the sage of Konigsberg. Endeavor
ing to reconcile the scepticism or Pan-Phenomenalism of
Hume, who held that we know nothing except phenomena
or our own feelings and states of consciousness, with the
dogmatism of Wolff and Leibnitz, who taught that there
are necessary and immutable elements in our knowledge
which transcend our subjective experience he distinguished
between the content and the forms of knowledge. The
former he derives from objects which are* otherwise de
clared to be unknown and unknowable, the latter are fur
nished by the senses and the mind. So far as our powers
of reason extend, therefore, we never can know real things,
but only the modes in which they affect us or the im
pressions they make on us. We cannot argue from these
INTRODUCTION V
impressions as effects to the objects that produce them as
causes because the very principle of causality is declared
by Kant to be a mere mental form, a means our minds have
of unifying and regulating experience, but not a principle
constituting and organizing the word of objects. What
then becomes of religion and morality if we cannot know
the existence of God, and the freedom and immortality of
the soul? They are postulates of the moral law, that are
guaranteed by the Practical Reason or by Conscience. The
starry heavens above and the moral law within, he tells us,
always filled him with awe. His ethical system is sublime
in its aim, but divorced from a rational and religious basis,
it resembles a pyramid standing on its apex.
The supremacy of the Practical over the Pure or Specu
lative Reason logically implies the superiority of action over
knowledge. The latter is relegated to the position of hand
maid to the former. Furthermore, the moral law is an ab
solute or categorical imperative. It does not depend upon
God or any other external authority. The human spirit is
free, autonomous or self-governing, not heteronomous or
the slave of another s will. How flattering this conception
is to human pride. The two theories of the superiority of
action to knowledge and of the autonomy of the human
spirit, have been adopted and professed with little change
by the Modernists.
Nay more it is in order to compel Christianity to express
itself in the forms and terms of Kant s system of philosophy
that the modern Ananiases control and distort the great
truths of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of
Christ, the efficacy of the Sacraments, and the teaching
authority of the Church. It has been said that Saint Thomas
of Aquin successfully attempted a similar revolution in
converting the mind of the Church to an acceptance of the
Aristotelian philosophy. Between the two cases there is
no parallelism whatever. The physical and metaphysical
writings of the Stagirite had been corrupted by Arabian
VI INTRODUCTION
commentators who had received them from the Sy.rians and
Persians, among whom Athenian philosophers banished by
Justinian in 529 had found refuge. Pantheists like David
of Dinant and Amaury of Chartres, deduced their wild
systems of Pantheism from such perverted sources, and it
was on account of these evil associations that Aristotle s
writings were condemned at the Council of Paris in 1210.
But about 1260 William of Moerbeka, "at the request of
St. Thomas, and, as it appears of Urban IV, translated the
complete works of Aristotle into Latin." The Aristotle that
was condemned was hostile, the Aristotle that was accepted
was favorable to the great truths of Christianity, and it was
the latter that St. Thomas made a pedagogue unto Christ,
and whose system he employed for the purpose of elaborat
ing a philosophy of the Christian religion, which left intact
the substance of its dogmas even as understood by the
simplest of the faithful. What parallelism can be drawn
then between so sane and conservative a reform and re
construction of theological science and a revolutionary and
anarchistic upheaval that denies the authority and infallibil
ity of the Church, the efficacy of the Sacraments, reduces
Christ to the mere category of noble men and proclaims his
resurrection a hallucination of the fancy? The relation of
Modernists and Pragmatists to the Church is analogous
to that of Protagoras to Plato. They are the modern
Sophists. They teach that man is the measure of all things,
that motion and change are universal, that nothing known
to the human mind is fixed, static, eternal. But the Church
proclaims the reality of immutable truth, the rights of the
sovereignty of God over the mind and conscience, the super
natural vocation of man, in other words, not only the basic
principles of all religion and morality, but the very condi
tions of right and consistent thinking. As the years pass,
and prejudices disappear, the Encyclical of Pius X on the
errors of the Modernists will come to be regarded as one
of the most important documents ever issued by the Holy
See in the course of its sublime history.
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE
SS. D. N. PII PP. X
AD PATR1ARCHAS PRIMATES ARCHIEP1SCOPOS EPISCOPOS
ALIOSQVE LOCORVM ORDINAR1OS
PACEM ET COMMVNIONEM CVM APOSTOLICA SEDE HABENTES
DE MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
VENERABILES FRATRES
SALVTEM ET APOSTOLIC AM BENEDICTIONEM.
Pascendi dominici gregis mandatum Nobis divinitus offi-
cium id munus in primis a Christo assignatum habet, ut
traditae sanctis fidei depositum vigilantissime custodial, re-
pudiatis profanis vocum novitatibus atque oppositionibus
falsi nominis scientiae. Quae quidem supremi providentia
pastoris nullo plane non tempore catholico agmini necessaria
fuit : etenim, auctore humani generis hoste, nunquam de-
fuere viri loquentes perversa 1 , i r aniloqui ct seductores a ,
err antes et in error em mittentes 3 . Verumtamen inimicorum
crucis Christi, postrema hac aetate, numerum crevisse ad-
modum fatendum est; qui, artibus omnino novis astuque
plenis, vitalem Ecclesiae vim elidere, ipsumque, si qtieunt,
Christi regnum evertere funditus nituntur. Quare silere
Nobis diutius baud licet, ne muneri sanctissimo deesse
videamur, et benignitas, qua, spe sanioris consilii, hue usque
usi sumus, officii oblivio reputetur.
Qua in re ut moram ne interponamus illud in primis
exigit, quod fautores errorum iam non inter apertos hostes
quaerendi sunt modo; verum, quod dolendum maxime
verendumque est, in ipso latent sinu gremioque Ecclesiae,
eo sane nocentiores, quo minus perspicui. Loquimur,
Venerabiles Fratres, de multis e catholicorum laicorum
numero, quin, quod longe miserabilius, ex ipso sacerdotum,
coetu, qui, fucoso quodam Ecclesiae amore, nullo solido
philosophiae ac theologiae praesidio, immo adeo venenatis
Act. XX, 30. 2 Tit. I, io. II. Tim. Ill, 13.
2 UTTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
imbuti penitus doctrinis quae ab Ecclesiae osoribus tradun-
tur, Ecclesiae eiusdem renovatores, omni posthabita mo-
destia animi, se iactitant; factoque audacius agmine, quid-
quid sanctius est in Christi opere impetunt, ipsa baud in-
columi divini Reparatoris persona, quam, ausu sacrilego, ad
purum putumque hominem extenuant.
Homines huiusmodi Ecclesiae Nos hostibus adscribere,
etsi mirantur ipsi, nemo tamen mirabitur iure, qui, mente
animi seposita cuius penes Deum arbitrium est, illorum
doctrinas et loquendi agendique rationes cognorit. Enim-
vero non is a veritate discedat, qui eos Ecclesiae adversarios
quovis alio perniciosiores habeat. Nam non hi extra Ec-
clesiam, sed intra, ut diximus, de illius pernicie cohsilia
agitant sua : quamobrem in ipsis fere Ecclesiae venis atque
in visceribus periculum residet, eo securiore damno, quo illi
intimius Ecclesiam norunt. Adde quod securim non ad
ramos surculosque ponunt; sed "ad radicum ipsam, fidem
nimirum fideique fibras altissimas. Icta autem radice hac
immortalitatis, virus per omnem arborem sic propagare per-
gunt, ut catholicae veritatis nulla sit pars unde manus
abstineant, nulla quam corrumpere non elaborent. Porro,
mille nocendi artes dum adhibent, nihil illis callidius nihil
insidiosius: nam et rationalistam et catholicum promiscue
agunt, idque adeo simulatissime, ut incautum quemque facile
in errorem pertrahant, cumque temeritate maxime valeant,
nullum est consecutionum genus quod horreant aut non
obfirmate secureque obtrudant. Accedit praeterea in illis,
aptissime ad fallendos animos, genus vitae cum maxime
actuosum, assidua ac vehemens ad omnem eruditionem occu-
patio, moribus plerumque austeris quaesita laus. Demum,
quod fere medicinae fiduciam tollit, disciplinis ipsi suis sic
animo sunt comparati, ut dominationem omnem spernant
nullaque recipiant frena; et freti mendaci quadam con-
scientia animi, nituntur veritatis studio tribuere quod uni
reapse superbiae ac pervicaciae tribuendum est. Equidem
speravimus huiusmodi quandoque homines ad meliora revo-
care ; quo in genere suavitate primum tamquam cum filiis,
turn vero severitate, demum, quanquam inviti, animadver-
sione publica usi sumus. Nostis tamen, Venerabiles Fratres,
quam haec fecerimus inaniter: cervicem, ad horam de-
flexam, mox extulerunt superbius. lam si illorum solum-
modo res ageretur, dissimulare forsitan possemus: sed
L1TTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 3
catholic! nominis e contra securitas agitur. Quapropter
silcntium, quod habere diutius piaculum foret, intercipere
necesse est ; ut personatos male homines, quales reapse sunt,
universae Ecclesiae demonstremus.
Quia vero modernistarum (sic enim iure in vulgus audi-
unt) callidissimum artificium est, ut doctrinas suas non
ordine digestas proponant atque in unum collectas, sed
sparsas veluti atque invicem seiunctas, ut nimirum ancipites
et quasi vagi videantur, cum e contra firm! sint et con-
stantes ; praestat, Venerabiles Fratres, doctrinas easdem uno
heic conspectu exhibere primurh, nexumque indicare quo
invicem coalescunt, ut delude errorum caussas scrutemur,
ac remedia ad averruncandam perniciem praescribamus.
Ut autem in abstrusiore re ordinatim procedamus, illud
ante omnia notandum est, modernistarum quemlibet plures
agere personas ac veluti in se commiscere ; philosophum
nimirum, credentem, theologum, historicum, criticum, apolo-
getam, instauratorem : quas singulatim omnes distinguere
oportet, qui eorum systema rite cognoscere et doctrinarum
antecessiones consequutionesque pervidere velit.
lam, ut a philosopho exordiamur, philosophiae religiosae
fundamentum in doctrina ilia modernistae ponunt, quam
vulgo agnosticisnium vocant. Vi huius humana ratio phae-
nomenis omnino includitur, rebus videlicet quae apparent
eaque specie qua apparent : earumdem praetergredi terminos
nee ius nee potestatem habet. Quare nee ad D eum se
erigere potis est, nee illius existentiam, ut per ea quae
videntur, agnoscere. Hinc infertur, Deum scientiae obiec-
turn directe nullatenus esse posse ; ad historian! vero quod
attinet, Deum subiectum historicum minime censendum esse.
- His autem positis, quid de natiirali theologia, quid de
moiivis credibilitatis, quid de externa revelatione fiat, facile
quisque perspiciet. Ea nempe modernistae penitus e medio
tollunt. et ad intellcctitalismnm amandant ; ridendum, in-
quiunt, systema ac mmdiu emortuum. Neque illos plane
retinet quod eiusmodi errorum portenta apertissime dam-
narit Ecclesia: siquidem Vaticana Synodus sic sanciebat:
Si quis dixerit Deum unum ct verum, Creatorem et Domi
nion nostrum, per ea quae facta sunt, naturali rationis
humanac luniinc ccrto coguasci non posse, anathema sit 1 ;
*De Revel, can. I. 2 Ibid. can. II.
4 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
itemque: Si quis dixerit fieri non posse } aut non expedire,
ut per revelationem divinam homo de Deo cultiique ei ex-
hibendo edoceatur, anathema sit 2 ; ac demum: : 5V qutis
dixerit revelationem dimnam externis signis credibilem fieri
non posse, ideoque sola interna cuiusque experientia aut
inspirations privata homines ad fidem moveri debere, ana
thema- sit 1 . Qua vero ratione ex agnosticismo, qui solum
est in ignoratione, ad atheismmn scientificum atque histori-
cum modernistae transeant, qui contra totus est in inficia-
tione positus : quo idcirco ratiocinationis iure, ex eo quod
ignoretur utrum humanarum gentium historiae intervenerit
Deus necne, fiat gressus ad eamdem historian! neglecto
omnino Deo explicandam, ac si reapse non intervenerit ;
norit plane qui possit. Id tamen ratum ipsis fixumque est,
atheam debere esse scientiam itemque historiam; in quarum
finibus non nisi phaenomenis possit esse locus, exturbato
penitus Deo et quidquid divinum est. Qua ex doctrina
absurdissima quid de sanctissima Christi persona, quid de
Ipsius vitae mortisque mysteriis, quid pariter de anastasi
deque in caelum ascensu tenendum sit,- mox plane vide-
bimus.
Hie tamen agnosticismus, in disciplina modernistarum,
non nisi ut pars negans habenda est : positiva, ut aiunt, in
immanentia intali constituitur. Harum nempe ad aliam
ex altera sic procedunt. Religio, sive ea naturalis est sive
supra naturam, ceu quodlibet factum, explicationem aliquam
admittat oportet. Explicatio autem, naturali theologia
deleta adituque ad revelationem ob reiecta credibilitatis
argumenta intercluso, immo etiam revelatione qualibet ex-
terna penitus sublata, extra hominem inquiritur frustra. Est
igitur in ipso homine quaerenda: et quoniam religio vitae
quaedam est forma, in vita omnino hominis reperienda est.
Ex hoc immanentiae religiosae principium asseritur. Vitalis
porro cuiuscumque phaenomeni, cuiusmodi religionem esse
iam dictum est, prima veluti motio ex indigentia quapiam
seu impulsione est repetenda : primordia vero, si de vita
pressius loquamur, ponenda sunt in motu quodam cordis,
qui sensus dicitur. Earn ob rem, cum religionis obiecturn
sit Deus, conclundendum omnino est, fidem, quae initium
est ac fundamentum cuiusvis religionis, in sensu quodam in-
timo collocari debere, qui ex indigentia divini oriatur. Haec
l De Fide can. III.
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 5
porro divini indigentia, quia nonnisi certis aptisque in com-
plexibus sentitur, pertinere ad conscientiae ambitum ex se
non potest; latet autem primo infra conscientiam, seu, ut
mutuato vocabulo a moderna philosophia loquuntur, in sub-
conscientia, ubi etiam illius radix occulta manet atque inde-
prehensa. Petet quis forsan, haec, divini indigentia, quam
homo in se ipse percipiat, quo demum pacto in religionem
evadat. Ad haec modernistae : Scientia atque historia, in-
quiunt, duplici includuntur termino; altero externo, aspec-
tabili nimirum mundo, altero interne, qui est conscientia.
Alterutrum ubi attigerint, ultra quo procedant non habent:
hos enim praeter fines adest incognoscibilc. Coram hoc
incognoscibili, sive illud sit extra hominem ultraque aspecta-
bilem naturam rerum, sive intus in subconscientia lateat,
indigentia divini in animo ad religionem prono, nullo, se-
cundum fideismi scita, praevertente mentis iudicio, pecu-
liarem quemdam commovet sensum: hie vero divinam ipsam
rcalitatem, turn tamquam obiectum turn tamquam sui caus-
sam intimam, in se implicatam habet atque hominem quo-
dammodo cum Deo coniungit. Est porro hie sensus quern
modernistae fidei nomine appellant, estque illis religionis
initium.
Sed non hie philosophandi, seu rectius delirandi, finis. In
eiusmodi enim sensu modernistae non fidem tantum re-
periunt ; sed, cum fide inque ipsa fide, prout illam intelli-
gunt, revelationi locum esse affirmant. Enimvero ecquid
amplius ad revelationem quis postulet? An non revela-
tionem dicemus, aut saltern revelationis exordium, sensum
ilium religiosum in conscientia apparentem ; quin et Deum
ipsum, etsi confusius, sese, in eodem religioso sensu, animis
manifestantem? Subdunt vero: cum fidei Deus obiectum
sit aeque et caussa, revelatio ilia et de Deo pariter et a Deo
est; habet Deum videlicet revelantem simul ac revelatum.
Hinc autem, Venerabiles Fratres, affirmatio ilia modernis-
tarum perabsurda, qua religio quaelibet, pro diverso ad-
spectu, naturalis una ac supernaturalis dicenda est. Hinc
conscientiae ac revelationis promiscua significatio. Hinc
lex, qua console n-tia rcligiosa ut regula universalis traditur,
cum revelatione penitus aequanda, cui subesse omnes opor-
teat, supremam etiam in Ecclesia potestatem, sive haec
doceat sive de sacris disciplinave statuat.
Attamen in toto hoc processu, unde, ex modernistarum
6 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE iMODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
sententia, fides ac revelatio prodeunt, untim est magnopere
attendendum, non exigui quidem momenti ob consequu-
tiones historico-criticas, quas inde illi eruunt. Nam Incog-
noscibile, de quo loquuntur, non se fidei sistit ut nudum
quid aut singulare; sed contra in phaenomeno aliquo arete
inhaerens, quod, quamvis ad campum scientiae aut historiae
pertinet, ratione tamen aliqua praetergreditur ; sive hoc
phaenomenon sit factum adiquod naturae, arcani quidpiam
in se continens, sive sit quivis unus ex hominibus, cuius
ingenium acta verba cum ordinariis historiae legibus com-
poni haud posse videntur. Turn vero fides, ab Incognos-
cibili allecta quod cum phaenomeno iungitur, totum ipsum
phaenomenon complectitur ac sua vita quodammodo per-
meat. Ex hoc autem duo consequuntur. Primum, quaedam
phaenomeni trans figuratio, per elationem scilicet supra veras
illius conditiones, qua aptior fiat materia ad induendam di-
vini formam, quam fides est inductura. Secundum, phae
nomeni eiusdem aliquapiam, sic vocare liceat, dcfiguratio
inde nata, quod fidem illi, loci temporisque adiunctis ex-
empto, tribuit quae reapse non habet: quod usuvenit prae-
cipue, quum de phaenomenis agitur exacti temporis, eoque
amplius quo sunt vetustiora. Ex gemino hoc capite binos
iterum modernistae eruunt canones ; qui, alteri additi iam
ex agnosticismo habito, critices historicae fundamenta con-
stituunt. Exemplo res illustrabitur ; sitque illud e Christi
persona petitum. In persona Christi, aiunt, scientia atqua
historia nil praeter hominem offendtmt. Ergo, vi primi
canonis ex agnosticismo deducti, ex eius historia quidquid
divinum redolet delendum est. Porro, vi alterius canonis,
Christi persona historica trawsfigurata est a fide : ergo sub-
ducendum ab ea quidquid ipsam evehit supra conditiones
historicas. Demum, vi tertii canonis, eadem persona Christi
a fide defigurata est : ergo removenda sunt ab ilia sermones,
acta; quidquid, uno verbo, ingenio, statui, educationi eius,
loco ac tempori quibus vixit, minime responded Mira
equidem ratiocinandi ratio: sed haec modernistarum critice.
Religio sus igitur sensus, qui per vitalem immanentiam e
latebris subconscientiae erumpit, germen est totius religionis
ac ratio pariter omnium, quae in religione quavis fuere aut
sunt futura. Rudis quidem initio ac fere informis, eiusmodi
setisus, paullatim atque influxu arcani illius principii unde
ortum habuit, adolevit una cum progressu humanae vitae,
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE .MODERN I STARVM DOCTRINIS 7
cuius, ut diximus, quaedam est forma. Habemus igitur
religionis cuiuslibet, etsi supernaturalis, originem ; sunt
nempe illae religiosi sensns merae explicationes. Nee quis
catholicam exceptam putet ; immo vero ceteris omnino
parem : nam ea in conscientia Christi, electissimae naturae
viri, cuiusmodi nemo unus fuit nee erit, zntalis processu
immancntiae, non aliter, nata est. Stupent profecto, qui
haec aucliant, tantam ad asserendum audaciam, tantum sac-
rilegium! Attamen, Venerabiles Fratres, non haec sunt
solum ab incredulis effutita temere. Catholici homines,
immo vere e sacerdotibus plures, haec palam edisserunt;
talibusque deliramentis Ecclesiam se instauraturos iactant!
Non heic iam de veteri errore agitur, quo naturae humanae
supernatularis ordinis veluti ius tribuebatur. Longius ad-
modum processum est: ut nempe sanctissima religio nos-
tra, in homine Christo aeque ac in nobis, a natura, ex se
stiaque sponte, edita affirmetur. Hoc autem nil profecto
aptius ad omnem supernaturalem ordinem abolendum.
Quare a Vaticana Synodo iure summo sancitum fuit: Si
quis dixerit, hominem ad cognitionem et perfectionem quae
naturalem superet, divinitus evehi non posse, sed ex seipso
ad omnis tandem veri et boni possessionem iugi profectu
pertingcrc posse et debere, anathema sit. *.
Hue usque tamen, Venerabiles, Fratres, nullum dari vidi
mus intellectui locum. Hatet autem et ipse, ex modernis-
tarum doctrina, suas in actu fidei partes. Quo dein pacto-
advertisse praestat. In sensu illo, inquiunt, quern saepius
nominavimus, quoniam sensus est non cognitio, Deus
quidem se homini sistit; verum confuse adeo ac permixte,
ut a subiecto credente vix ant minime distinguatur. Necesse
igitur est aliquo eumdem sensum collustrari lumine, ut
Deus inde omnino exiliat ac secernatur. Id nempe ad in-
tellectum pertinet, cuius est cogitare et analysim instituere;
per quern homo vitalia phaenomena in se exsurgentia in
species primum traducit, turn autem verbis significat. Hinc
vulgata modernistarum enunciatio: debere religiosum homi-
nem fidem suam cogitare. Mens ergo illi sensui adye-
niens, in eumdem se inflectit, inque eo elaborat pictoris in-
star, qui obsoletam tabulae cuiusdam diagraphen collustret
ut nitidius efferat: sic enim fere quidam modernistarum
doctor rem explicat. In eiusmodi autem negotio mens dup-
l De Revel, can. III.
8 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
liciter operatur: primum, natural! actu et spontaneo, red-
ditque rem sententia quadam simplici ac vulgari ; secundo
vero reflexe ac penitius, vel, tit aiunt, cogitatione elaboran-
da, eloquiturque cogitata secudariis sententiis, deri-
vatis quidem a prima ilia simplici, limatioribus tamen ac dis-
tinctioribus. Qufce secwndpriae sententiae, si demum a
supremo Ecclesiae magisterio sancitae fuerint, constituent
dogma.
Sic igitur in modernistarum doctrina ventum est ad caput
quoddam praecipuum, videlicet ad originem dogmatis atque
ad ipsam dogmatis naturam. Originem enim dogmatis
ponunt quidem in primigeniis illis formulis simplicibus,
quae, quodam sub respectu, necessariae sunt fidei; nam
revelatio, ut reapse sit, manifestam Dei notitiam in con-
scientia requirit. Ipsum tamen dogma secundariis proprie
contineri formulis affirmare videntur. Eius porro ut asse-
quamur naturam, ante omnia inquirendum est, quaenam in-
tercedat relatio inter formulas religiosas et religioswnt animi
sensum. Id autem facile inteliget, qui teneat formularwn
eiusmodi non alium esse finem, quam modum suppeditare
credenti, quo sibi suae fidei rationem reddat. Quamobrem
mediae illae sunt inter credentem eiusque fidem : ad fidem
autem quod attinet, sunt inadaequatae eius obiecti notae,
vulgo symbola vocitant; ad credentem quod spectat, sunt
mera instrument. Quocirca nulla confici ratione potest,
eas veritatem absolute continere : nam, qua symbola,
imagines sunt veritatis, atque idcirco sensui religioso ac-
commodandae, prout hie ad hominem refertur; qua instru-
menta, sunt veritatis vehicula, atque ideo accomodanda
vicissim homini, prout refertur ad religiosum sensum. Obi-
ectum autem sensus religiosi, utpote quod absohtto contine-
tur, infinites habet adspectus, quorum modo hie modo alius
apparere potest. Similiter homo, qui credit, aliis atque aliis
uti potest conditionibus. Ergo et formulas, quas dogma
appellamus, vicissitudini eidem subesse oportet, ac propterea
varietati esse obnoxias. Ita vero ad intimam evolutionem
dogmatis expeditum est iter. Sophismatum profecto coa-
cervatio infinita, quae religionem omnem pessumdat ac
delet !
Evolvi tamen ac mutari dogma non posse solum sed
oportere, et modernistae ipsi perfracte affirmant, et ex eorum
sententiis aperte consequitur. Nam inter praecipua doc-
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 9
trinae capita hoc illi habent quod ab imnianentiae vitalis
principio deducunt: formulas rcligiosas, ut religiosae reapse
sint nee solum intellectus commentationes, vitales esse de-
bere vitamque ipsam vivere sensus religiosi. Quod non ita
intelligendum- est quasi hae formulae, praesertim si mere
imaginativae, sint pro ipso religiose sensu inventae ; nihil
enim refert admodum earum originis, ut etiam numeri vel-
qualitatis : sed ita, ut eas rcligiosus sensus, mutatione aliqua,
si opus est, adhibita, vitaliter sibi adiungat. Scilicet, ut aliis
dicamus, necesse est ut formula primitiva acceptetur a corde
ab eoque sanciatur ; itemque sub cordis ductu sit labor, quo
sccundariac formulae progignuntur. Hinc accidit quod
debeant hae formulae, ut vitales sint, ad fidem pariter et ad
credentem accommodatae esse ac manere. Quamobrem, si
quavis ex causa huiusmodi accommodatio cesset, amittunt
illae primigenias notiones ac mutari indigent. Haec porro
formularum dogmaticarum cum sit vis ac fortuna instabilis,
mirum non est illas modernistis tanto esse ludibrio ac des-
pectui ; qui nihil e contra loquuntur atque extollunt nisi
religiosum sensum vitamque religiosam. Ideo et Ecclesiam
audacissime carpunt tamquam devio itinere incedentem,
quod ab externa formularum significatione religiosam vim
ac moralem minime distinguat, et formulis notione caren-
tibus casso labore ac tenacissime inhaerens, religionem
ipsam dilabi permittat. Cacci equidem et duces caecorum,
qui superbo scientiae nomine inflati usque eo insaniunt ut
aeternam veritatis notionem et germanum religionis sensum
pervertant: novo invecto systemate, quo, ex proiecta et
effrcnata novitatum cupiditate, vcritas, ubi certo consistit,
non quacritur, sanctisquc ct apostolicis traditionibns post-
habit is, doc trinae aliae inanes, futilcs, mcertac nee ab Ec-
clcsia probatae adsciscnnt, quibus vcritatem ipsam fulciri
ac sustineri vanissimi homines arbitrantur a .
Atque haec, Venerabiles Fratres, de modernista ut philo-
sppho. lam si, ad credentem progressus, nosse quis velit
unde hie in modernistis a philosopho distinguatur, illud ad-
vertere necesse est, etsi philosophus rcalitatcm divini ut
fidei obiectum admittat, hanc tamen ab illo rcalitatcm non
alibi reperiri nisi in credentis animo, ut obiectum sensus
est et affirmationis atque ideo phaenomenorum ambitum
Gregor. XVI Ep. Encycl., Singulars Nos 7 kal. iul. 1834.
10 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE MODERNISTARVM DOCTR1NIS
non excedit: utrum porro in se ilia extra sensum existat
atque affirmationem huiusmodi, praeterit philosophus ac
negligit. E contra modernistae credenti ratum ac certum
est, realitatem divini reapse in se ipsam existere nee prorsus
a credente pendere. Quod si postules, in quo tandem haec
credentis assertio nitatur; reponent: in privata cuiusque
hominis experientia. In qua affirmatione, dum equidem hi
a rationalistis dissident, in protestantium tamen ac pseudo-
mysticorum opinionem discedunt. Rem enim sic edisse-
runt: in sensu religioso quemdam esse agnoscendum cordis
intuitum ; quo homo ipsam, sine medio, Dei realitatem attin-
git, tantamque de existentia Dei haurit persuasionem deque
Dei turn intra turn extra hominem actione, ut persuasionem
omnem, quae ex scientia peti possit, longe antecellat. Veram
igitur ponunt experientiam, eamque rational! qualibet ex-
perientia praestantioreni : quam si quis, ut rationalistae, in-
ficiatur, inde fieri affirmant, quod nolit is in eis se ipse
constituere moralibus adiunctis, quae ad experientiam
gignendam requirantur. Haec porro experientia, cum quis
illam fuerit assequutus, proprie vereque credentem efficit.
Quam hie longe absumus a catholicis institutis ! Commenta
eiusmodi a Vaticana Synodo improbata iam vidimus.
His semel admissis una cum erroribus ceteris iam memora-
tis, quo pacto ad atheismum pateat via, inferius dicemus.
Nunc statim advertisse iuverit, ex hac experientiae doctrina,
coniuncta alteri de symbolisms, religionem quamlibet, ethni-
corum minime excepta, ut veram esse habendam. Quidni
etenim in religione quavis experientiae huiusmodi occur-
rant? occurrisse vero non unus asserit. Quo iure autem
modernistae veritatem experientiae abnuent, quam turca
affirmet ; verasque experimentias unis catholicis vindica-
bunt ? Neque id reapse modernistae denegant ; quin immo,
subobscure alii, alii apertissime, religiones omnes contendunt
esse veras. Secus autem sentire nee posse, manifestum est.
Nam religioni cuipiam quo tandem ex capite, secundum
illorum praecepta, foret falsitas tribuenda? Certe vel ex
fallacia sensus religiosi, vel quod falsiloqua sit formula ab
intellectu prolata. Atqui sensus religiosus unus semper
idemque est, etsi forte quandoque imperfection formula
autem intellectus, ut vera sit, sufficit ut religioso sensui
hominique crede(nti reSpondeat, quidquid de huius per-
spicuitate ingenii esse queat. Unum, ad summum, in reli-
gionum diversarum conflictu, modernistae contendere forte
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS II
possint, catholicam, utpote vividiorem, plus habere veritatis ;
itemque christiano nomine digniorem earn esse, ut quae
christianismi exordiis respondeat plenius. Has consecu-
tiones omnes ex datis antecedentibus fluere, nemini erit ab-
sonum. Illud stupendum cum maxime, catholicos dari viros
ac sacerdotes, qui, etsi, ut autumari malumus, eiusmodi por-
tenta horrent, agunt tamen ac si plene probent. Eas etenim
errorum talium magistris tribuunt laudes, eos publice habent
honores, ut sibi quisque suadeat facile, illos non homines
honorare, aliquo forsan numero non expertes, sed errores
potius, quos hi aperte asserunt inque vulgus spargere omni
ope nituntur.
Est aliud praeterea in hoc doctrinae capite, quod catho-
licae veritati est omnino infestum. Nam istud de experi-
cntia praeceptum ad traditionem etiam transfertur, quam
Ecclesia hue usque asseruit, eamque prorsus adimit. Enim-
vero modernistae sic traditionem intelligunt, ut sit originalis
e.rpcricntiac quae dam cum aliis communicatio per praedica-
tionem, ope formulae intellectivae. Cui formulae propterea,
praeter vim, ut aunt, repracscntativam, snggestivam quan-
dam adscribunt virtutem, turn in eo qui credit, ad sensus
religiosum forte torpentem excitandum, instaurandamque
expcricntlam aliquando habitam, turn in eis qui nondum
credunt, ad sensum religiosum primo gignendum et experi-
entiam producendam. Sic autem experientia religiosa late
in populos propagatur ; nee tantummodo in eos qui nunc
sunt per praedicationem, sed in posteros etiam, tam per
libros quam per verborum de aliis in alios replicationem.
Haec vero experientiae communicatio radices quandoque
agit vigetque ; senescit quandoque statim ac moritur. Vigere
autem, modernistis argumentttm veritatis est: veritatem
enim ac vitam promiscue habent. Ex quo inferre denuo
licebit : religones omnes quotquot extant veras esse, nam
secus nee viverent.
Re porro hue adducta, Venerabiles Fratres, satis superque
habemus ad recte cognoscendum, quern ordinem modernis
tae statuant inter fidem et scientiam ; quo etiam scientiae
nomine historia apud illos notatur. Ac primo quidem
tenendum est, materiam uni obiectam materiae obiectae
alteri externam omnino esse ab eaque seiunctam. Fides
enim id unice spectat, quod scientia incognoscibile sibi esse
profitetur. Hinc diversum utrique pensum: scientia versa-
12 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE .MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
tur in phaenomenis, ubi nullus fidei locus; fides e contra
versatur in divinis, quae scientia penitus ignorat. Unde
demum ^ confictur, inter fidem et scientiam nunquam esse
posse discidium^ si enim suum quaeque locum teneat, oc-
currere^ sibi invicem nunquam poterunt, atque ideo nee
contradicere. Quibus si qui forte obiiciant, quaedam in
aspectabili occurrere natura rerum quae ad fidem etiam per-
tineant, uti humanam Christi vitam; negabunt. Nam, etsi
haec phaenomenis accensentur, tamen, quatenus vita fidei
imbuuntur, et a fide, quo supra dictum est modo, trans-
figurata ac defigurata fuerunt, a sensibili mundo sunt
abrepta et in divini materiam translata. Quamobrem pos-
centi ulterius, an Christus vera patrarit miracula vereque
futura praesenserit, an vere revixerit atque in coelum con-
scenderit ; scientia agnostica abnuet, fides affirmabit ; ex hoc
tamen nulla erit inter utramque pugna. Nam abnuet alter
ut philosophus alloquens, Christum scilicet unice contem-
platus secundum realitatem historicam; affirmabit alter ut
credens cum credentibus loquutus, Christi vitam spectans
proutiierum viintur a fide et in fide.
Ex his tamen fallitur vehementer qui reputet posse opi-
nari, fidem et scientiam alteram sub altera nulla penitus
ratione^ esse subiectam. Nam de scientia quidem recte vere
que existimabit ; secus autem de fide, quae, non uno tantum
sed triplici ex capite, scientiae subiici dicenda est. Primum
namque advertere oportet, in facto quovis religiose, detracta
divinia r edit ate quamque de ilia habet cxperientiam qui
credit, cetera omnia, praesertim vero religiosas formulas,
phaenomenorum ambitum minime transgredi, atque ideo
cadere sub scientiam. Liceat utique credenti, si velit, de
mundo excedere; quamdiu tamen in mundo deget, leges,
obtutum, . iudicia scientiae atque historiae numquam, velit
nolit, effugiet. Praeterea, quamvis dictum; est Deum
solius fidei esse obiectum, id de divina quidem realitate con-
cedendum est, non tamen de idea Dei. Haec quippe scien
tiae subest; quae, dum in ordine, ut aiunt, logico pholisopha-
tur, quidquid etiam absolutum est attingit atque ideale.
Quocirca philosophia seu scientia cognoscendi de idea Dei
ius habet, eamque in sui evolutione moderandi et, si quid
extraneum invaserit, corrigendi. Hinc modernistarum erTa-
tum: evolutionem religiosam cum morali et intellectuali
componi debere; videlicet, ut quidam tradit quern magis-
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 13
truni scquuntur, eisdem subdi. Accedit demum quod
homo dualitatem in se ipse non patitur, quamobrem creden-
tem quacclani intima urget necessitas fidem cum scientia sic
componendi, ut a generali ne discrepet idea, quam scientia
ezhibet de hoc mundo universo. Sic ergo conficitur, scien-
tiam a fide omnino solutam esse, fidem contra, ut ut scien-
tiae extranea praedicetur, eidem subesse. Quae omnia,
Venerabiles Fratres, contraria prorsus sunt iis quae Pius
IX decessor Noster tradebat, docens 1 : Philosophiae csse,
in iis quae ad rcligioncm pertinent, non dominari sed
ancillari, non pracscribere quid credcndmn sit, sed ration-
abili obscquio aniplccti, neque altitudincm scrntari mysteri-
orium Dei, sed ilia in pie hmniliterque revereri. Modernistae
negotium plane inyertunt: qtiibus idcirco applicari queunt,
quae Gregorius IX item decessor Noster de quibusdam suae
aetatis theologis scribebat 2 : Quidam apud vos f spiritu
vanitatis ut liter distenti, positos a Patribus tcrminos pro-
fana transfcrre satagnnt novitatc; coelestis paginae intel-
lectum... ad doctrinam philosophic am rationaliuminclinando,
ad ostentationcni scicntiae, non profectum aliquem audi
tor inn... Ipsi, doctrinis variis et peregrinis abducti, redigunt
caput in caudam, et ancillae cogunt famulari reginam.
Quod profecto apertius patebit intuenti quo pacto mod-
ernistae agant, accomodate omnino ad ea quae decent.
Multa enim ab eis contrarie videntur scripta vel dicta, ut
quis facile illos aestimet ancipites atque incertos. Verum-
tamen consulte id et considerate accidit; ex opinione scilicet
quam habent de fidei atque scientiae seiunctione mutua.
Hinc in eorum libris quaedam offendimus quae catholicus
omnino probet ; quaedam, aversa pagina, quae rationalistam
dictasse autumes. Hinc, historiam scribentes, nullam de
divinitate Christi mentionem iniiciunt; ad concionem vero
in templis earn firmissime profitentur. Item, enarrantes his
toriam, Concilia et Patres nullo loco habent ; catechesim
autem si tradunt, ilia atque illos cum honore afferunt. Hinc
etiam exegesim theologicam et pastoralem a scientifica et
historica secernunt. Similker, ex principio quod scientia a
fide nullo pacto pendeat, quum de philosophia, de historia,
de critice disserunt, Lutheri sequi vestigia non exhorrentes 1 ,
despicientiam praeceptorum catholicorum, sanctorum Pat-
^rev. ad Ep. Wratislav. 15 inn. 1857.
! Ep. ad Magistros theol. paris., non. iul. 1223.
14 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
rum, oecumenicarum synodorum, magisterii ecclesiastici
omnimodis ostentant; de qua si carpantur, libertatem sibi
adimi conqueruntur. Professi demum fidem esse scientiae
subiiciendam, Ecclesiam passim aperteque reprehendunt
quod sua dogmata philosophiae opinionibus subdere et ac-
comodare obstinatissime renuat: ipsi vero, veteri ad hunc
finem theologia sublata, novam invehere contendunt, quae
philosophorum delirationibus obsecundet.
Hie iam, Venerabiles Fratres, nobis fit aditus ad modern-
istas in theologico agone spectandos. Salebrosum quidem
opus: sed paucis absolvendum. Agitur nimirttm de con-
cilianda fide cum scientia, idque non aliter quam una alteri
subiecta. Eo in genere modernista theolpgus eisdem utitur
principiis, quae usui philosopho esse vidimus, illaque ad
credentem aptat : principia inquimus immanentiae et sym-
bolismi. Sic autem rem expeditissime perficit. Traditur a
philosopho principium fidei esse immanens; a credente addi-
tur hoc principium. Deum esse: concludit ipse Deus ergo
immanens in homine. Hinc immanentia theologica. Iterum :
philosopho certum est repraesentationem obiecti fidei esse
tantum symbolicas; credenti pariter certum est fidei obiec-
tum esse Deum in se: theologus igitur colligit : repraesenta-
tiones divinae realitatis esse symbolicas. Hinc symbolismus
theologicus. Errores profecto maximi : quorum uterque
quam sit perniciosus, consequentiis inspectis patebit.
Nam, ut de symbolismo statim dicamus, cum symbola talia
sint respectu obiecti, respectu autem credentis* sint instru-
menta; cavendum primum, inquiunt, credenti, ne ipsi for
mulae ut formula est plus nimio inhaereat, sed ilia utendum
unice ut absolutae adhaerescat veritati, quam formula re-
tegit simul ac tegit nititurque exprimere quin unquam asse-
quatur. Addunt praeterea, formulas eiusmodi esse a cre
dente adhibendas quatenus ipsum iuverint ; ad commodum
enim datae, sunt, non ad impedimentum : incolumi utique
honore qui, ex sociali respectu, debetur formulis, quas pub-
licum magisterium aptas ad communem conscientiam ex-
primendam iudicarit, quamdiu scilicet idem magisterium
. 29 damn, a Leone X. Bull. Exsurge Domine. 16 maii 1520.
Via nobis facta est enervandi auctoritatem Conciliorum, et libere
contradicendi eorum gestis, et iudicandi eorum decreta et confi-
denter confitendi quidquid verum videtur, sive probatutn fuerit, svve
reprobatum a quocumque Concilia.
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE .MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 1 5
secus quidpiam non edixerit. De immancntia autem quid
reapse modernistae sentiant difficile est indicate : non enim
eadem omnium opinio. Sunt qui in eo collocant, quod
Deus agens intime adsit in homine, magis quam ipse sibi
homo; quod plane, si recte intelligitur, reprehensionem non
habet. Alii in eo ponunt, quod actio Dei una sit cum
actione naturae ut causae primae cum causae secundae ;
quod ordinem supernaturalem reapse delet. Alii demum
sic explicant ut suspicionem efficiant pantheisticae significa-
tionis ; id autem cum ceteris eorum doctrinis cohaeret aptius.
Huic vero iwtnanentiae pronunciato aliud adiicitur, quod
a permancntia dirina vocare possumus : quae duo inter se
eo fere modo differunt, quo experientia privata ab experien
tia per traditionem transmissa. Exemplum rem collustrabit :
sitque ab Ecclesia et Sacramentis deductum. Ecclesia, in-
quiunt et Sacramenta a Christo ipso instituta minime cre-
denda sunt. Cavet id agnosticismus, qui in Christo nil
praeter hominem novit, cuius conscientia religiosa, ut cete-
rorum hominum, sensim efformata est : cavet lex immanen-
tiae, quae externas, ut aiunt, applicationes respuit : cavet item
lex evolutionis, quae ut germina evolvantur tempus postulat
et quandam adiunctorum sibi succedentium seriem : cavet de-
num historia, quae talem reapse rei cursum fuisse ostendit.
Attamen Ecclesiam et Sacramenta mediate a Christo fuisse
instituta retinendum est. Qui vero? Conscientias chris-
tianas omnes in Christi conscientia virtute quodammodo in-
clusas affirmant, ut in semine planta. Quoniam autem ger
mina vitam seminnis vivunt ; christiani omnes vitam Christi
vivere dicendi sunt. Sed Christi vita, secundum fidem,
divina est : ergo et christianorum vita. Si igitur haec vita,
decursu aetatum, Ecclesiae et Sacramentis initium dedit:
hire omnino dicetur initium huiusmodi esse a Christo ac
divinum esse. Sic omnino conficiunt divinas esse etiam
Scripturas sacras, divina dogmata. His porro modernis-
tarum theologia ferme absolvitur. Brevis profecto supel-
lex: sed ei perabundans, qui profiteatur, s^ientiae, quidquid
praeceperit, semper esse obtemperandum. Horum ad
cetera quae dicemus applicationem quisque facile per se
viderit.
De origine fidei deque eius natura attigimus hue usque.
Fidei autem cum multa sint germina, praecipua vero Eccle-
1907, vol. 3, fasc. 1374. 46. 18 settembre 1907.
l6 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE jMODERNlSTARVM DOCTRINIS
sia, dogma, sacra et religiones, libri quos sanctos nomina-
mus; de his quoque quid modernistae doceant, inquiren-
dum. Atque ut dogma initium ponamus, huius quae sit
prigo et natura iam supra indicatum est. Oritur illud ex
impulsione quadam seu necessitate, vi cuius qui credit in
suis cogitatis elaborat, ut conscientia tarn sua quam aliorum
illustretur magis. Est hie labor in rimando totus expolien-
doque primigeniam mentis formulam, non quidem in se
illam secundum logicam explicationem, sed secundum cir-
cumstantia, seu, ut minus apte ad intelligendum inquiunt,
vitaliter. Inde fit ut, circa illam, secundariae quaedam, ut
iam innuimus, sensim enascantur formulae; quae postea in
unum corpus coagmentatae vel in unum doctrinae aedifi-
cium, cum a magisterio publico sancitae fuerint utpote com-
muni conscientiae respondentes, dicuntur dogma. Ab hoc
secernendae sunt probe theologorum commentationes : quae
ceteroqui. quamvis vitam dogmatis non vivunt, non omnino
tamen sunt inutiles, turn ad religionem cum scientia com-
ponendam et oppositiones inter illas tollendas, turn ad re
ligionem ipsam extrinsecus illustrandam protuendamque ;
forte etiam utilitati fuerint novo cuidam futuro dogmati
materiam praeparando. De cultu sacrorum haud foret
multis dicendum, nisi eo quoque nomine Sacramenta veni-
rent ; de quibus miximi modernistarum errores. Cultum ex
duplici impulsione seu necessitate oriri perhibent; omnia
etenim, ut vidimus, in eorum systemate impulsionibus inti-
mis seu necessitatibus gigni asseruntur. Altera est ad sensi-
bile quiddam religioni tribuendum, altera ad earn profer-
endam, quod fieri utique nequaquam possit sine forma
quadam sensibili et consecrantibus actibus ; quae Sacramenta
dicimus. Sacramenta autem modernistis nuda sunt symbola
seu signa ; quamvis non vi carentia. Quam vim ut indicent,
exemplo ipsi utuntur verborum quorundam ; quae vulgo
fortunam dicuntur sortita, eo quod virtutem conceperint
ad notiones quasdam propogandas, robustas maximeque per-
cellentes animos. Sicut ea verba ad notiones, sic Sacra
menta ad sensum religiosum ordinata sunt : nihil prae-
terea. Clarius profecto dicerent, si Sacramenta unice ad
nutriendam fidem instituta affirmarent. Hoc tamen Triden-
tina Synodus damnavit 1 : Si quis di.rerit haec sacramenta
propter solam fidem nutriendam instituta fuisse, anathema
sit.
1 Sess. VII, de Sacramentis in genere, can. 5.
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 17
De librorum etiam sacrorum natura et origine aliquid
iam delibavimus. Eos, ad modernistarum scita, definire
probe quis possit syllogen expcricnlianun, non cuique pas
sim advenientium, sed extraordinarium atque insignium,
quae in quapiam religione sunt habitae. Sic prorsus mod-
ernistae docent de libris nostris turn veteris turn novi testa-
menti. Ad suas tamen opiniones callidissime notant : quam-
vis experientia sit praesentis temporis, posse tamen illam
de praeteritis aeque ac de futuris materiam sumere, prout
videlicet qui credit vel exacta rursus per recordationem in
modum praescntium vivit, vel futura per praeoccupationem.
Id autem explicat quomodo historic! quoque et apocalyptici
in libris sacris censeri queant. Sic igitur in hisce libris
Deus quidem loquitur per credentem ; sed, uti fert theologia
modernistarum, per immanentiam solummodo et permanen-
tiam I italcm. Quaeremus, quid turn de inspiratione?
Haec, respondent, ab impulsione ilia, nisi forte vehementia,
nequaquam secernitur, qua credens ad fidem suam verbo
scriptove aperiendam adigitur. Simile quid habemus in
poetica inspiratione ; quare quidam aiebat : Est Deus in
nobis, agitante calescimus illo. Hoc modo Deus initium
dici debet inspirationis sacrorum librorum. De qua prae-
terea inspiratione modernistae addunt, nihil omnino esse in
sacris libris quod ilia careat. Quod quum affirmant, magis
eos crederes orthodoxos quam recentiores, alios, qui in-
spirationem aliquantum coangustant, ut, exempli causa,
quum tacitas sic dictas citationes invehunt. Sed haec illi
verbo tenus ac simulate. Nam si Biblia ex agnosticismi
praeceptis iudicamus, humanum scilicet opus, ab hominibus
pro hominibus exaratum, licet ins theologo detur ea per
immancntiam. divina praedicandi ; qui demum inspiratio
coarctari possit? Generalem utique modernistae sacrorum
librorum inspirationem asseverant : catholico tamen sensn
nnllam admittunt.
Largiorem dicendi segetem offerunt, quae modernistarum
schola de Ecclesia imaginatur. Ponnnt initio earn ex
duplici necessitate oriri, una in credente quovis, in eo prae-
sertim qui primigeniam ac singularem aliquam sit nactus
experientiam, ut fidem suam cum aliis communicet : altera,
postquam fides communis inter plures evaserit, in collec-
tiintate, ad coalescendum in societatem et ad commune
bonum tuendum, augendum, propagandum. Quid igitur
1 8 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE iMODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
Ecclesia? partus est conscientiae collectives seu consocia-
tionis conscientiarium singularium ; quae vi pennanentiac
vitalis, a primo aliquo credente pendeant, videlicet, pro
catholicis, a Christo. Porro societas quaepiam modera-
trice auctoritate indiget, cuius sit officium consociatos omnes
in communem finem dirigere, et compagis elementa tueri
prudenter, quae, in religiose coetu, doctrina et cultu absol-
vuntur. Hinc in Ecclesia catholica auctoritas tergemina :
disciplinaris, dogmatica, cultualis. lam auctoritatis hums
natura ex origine colligenda est; ex natura vero iura atque
officia repetenda. Praeteritis aetatibus vulgaris fuit error
quod auctoritas in Ecclesiam extrinsecus accesserit, nimi-
rum immediate a Deo ; quare aiitocratica merito habebatur.
Sed haec nunc temporis obsolevere. Quo modo Ecclesia e
conscientiarum collectivitate emanasse dicitur, eo pariter
auctoritas ab ipsa Ecclesia vitaliter emanat. Auctoritas igi-
tur, sicut Ecclesia, ex conscientia religiosa oritur, atque
ideo eidem subest ; quam subiectionem si spreverit, in tyran-
nidem vertitur. Ea porro tempestate nunc vivimus, quum
libertatis sensus in fastigium summum excrevit. In civili
statu conscientia publica populare regimen invexit. Sed
conscientia in homine, aeque atque vita, una est. Nisi ergo
in hominum conscientiis intestinum velit excitare bellum ac
fovere, auctoritati Ecclesiae officium inest democraticis
utendi formis ; eo vel magis quod, ni faxit, exitium imminet.
Nam amens profecto fuerit, qui in sensu liberatis, qualis
nunc viget, regressum posse fieri aliquando autumet. Con-
strictus vi atque inclusus, fortior se profundet, Ecclesia
pariter ac religione deleta. Haec omnia modernistae ra-
tiocinantur; qui propterea toti stint in indagandis viis ad
auctoritatem Ecclesiae cum credentium libertate componen-
dam.
Sed enim non intra domesticos tantum parietes habet Ec
clesia, quibuscum amice cohaerere illam oporteat; habet et
extra. Non una namque ipsa occupat mundum ; occupant
aeque consociationes aliae, quibuscum commercium et usus
necessario intercedat. Quae iura igitur, quae sint Ecclesiae
officia cum civilibus consociationibus determinandum est
etiam, nee aliter determinandum nisi ex ipsius Ecclesiae
natura, qualem nimirum modernistae nobis descripsere.
In hoc autem eisdem plane regulis utuntur, quae supra
pro scientia, atque fide sunt allatae. Ibi de obiectis sermo
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE MODERN I STARVM DOCTRIN1S I <;
erat, heic de finihiis. Sicut igitur rationc obiccti fidem ac
scientiam extraneas ab invicem vidimus : sic Status et Ec-
clesia alter ab altera extranea sunt ob fines quos persequun-
tur, temporalem ille, haec spiritualem. Licuit profecto alias
temporale spirituali subiici ; licuit de mi.vtis quaestionibus
sermonem interseri, in quibus Ecclesia ut domina ac regina
intererat, quia nempe Ecclesia a Deo, sine medio, ut ordinis
supernaturalis est auctor, instituta ferebatur. Sed iam haec
a philosophis atque historicis respuuntur. Status ergo ab
Ecclesia dissociandus, sicut etiam catholicus a cive. Quamo-
brem catholicus quilibet, qua etiam civis, ius atque officium
habet, Ecclesiae auctoritate neglecta, eius optatis, consiliis
praeceptisque posthabitis, spretis immo reprehensionibus,
ea persequendi quae civitatis utilitati conducere arbitretur.
Viam ad agendum civi praescribere praetextu quolibet,
abusus ecclesiasticae potestatis est, toto nisu reiiciendus.
Ea nimirum, Venerabiles Fratres, unde haec omnia dima-
nant, eadeni profecto sunt, quae Pius VI decessor Noster,
in Constitutione apostolica Au-ctorem Mei, solemniter
damnavit 1 .
Sed modernistarum scholae satis non est debere Statum
ab Ecclesia seiungi. Sicut fidem, quoad elementa, ut in-
quiunt, phaenomenica scientiae subdi oportet, sic in tem-
poralibus negotiis Ecclesiam subesse Statui. Hoc quidem
illi aperte nondum forte asserunt; ratiocinationis tamen vi
coguntur admittere. Posito etenim quod in temporalibns
rebus Status possit unus, si accidat credentem, intimis reli-
gionis actibus baud contentum, in externos exilire, ut puta
administrationem susceptionemve Sacramentorum ; necesse
erit haec sub Status dominium cadere. Ecquid turn de
ecclesistica auctoritate? Cum haec nisi per externos actus
non explicetur ; Statui, tota quanta est, erit obnoxia. Hac
nempe consecutione coacti, multi e protestantibus libcralibus
cultum omnem sacrum externum, quin etiam externam
quamlibet religiosam consociationem e medio tollunt, reli-
^rop. 2. Propositio, quae statuit, potcstatem a Deo datam Ec
clesiae, ut co-nimunicarctur Pastoribus, qui sunt eius mimstri pro
salute aniniaruni ; sic iniellecta, ut a communitate fidelium in Pas-
tores derivctur ecclesiastici ministerii ac regiminis potestas: haeret-
ica. Prop. 3. Insurer, quae statuit Roniainun Pontificem esse
cuput ministerial*; sic explfc&a ut Ronianus Pontife.r non a Christo
in persona beati Pctri, scd ab Ecclesia potcstatein ministerii acci-
piat, qua relut Pctri successor, versus Christi I iearius ac totius Ec
clesiae caput pallet in unii ersa Ecclesia: haeretica.
2O LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE iMODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
gionemque, ut aiunt, individualem invehere adnituntur.
Quod si modernistae nondum ad haec palam progrediuntur,
petunt interea ut Ecclesia quo ipsi impellunt sua se sponte
inclinet seseque ad civiles formas aptet. Atque haec de
auctoritate disciplinari. Nam de doctrinali et dogtnatica
potestate longe peiora sunt ac perniciosiora quae sentiunt.
De magisterio Ecclesiae sic scilicet commentantur. Con-
sociatio religiosa in unum vere coalescere nequaquam po-
test, nisi una sit consociatorum conscientia, unaque, qua
utantur, formula. Utraque autem haec unitas mentem
quandam quasi communem expostulat, cuius sit reperire ac
determinare formulam, quae communi conscientiae rectius
respondeat ; cui quidem menti satis auctoritatis inesse opor-
tet ad formulam quam statuerit communitati imponendam.
In hac porro coniunctione ac veluti fusione turn mentis
formulam eligentis turn potestatis eamdem perscribentis,
magisterii ecclesiastici notionem modernistae collocant. Cum
igitur magisterium ex conscientiis singularibus tandem ali-
quando nascatur, et publicum officium in earumdem consci-
entiarum commodum mandatum habeat ; consequitur neces-
sario, illud ab eisdem conscientiis pendere, ac prolnde ad
populares formas esse inflectendum, Quapropter singula-
rium hominum conscientias prohibere quominus impulsiones
quas sentiunt palam aperteque profiteantur, et criticae viam
praepedire qua dogma ad necessarias evolutiones impellat,
potestatis ad utilitatem permissae non usus est sed abusus.
Similiter in usu ipso potestatis modus temperatioque sunt
adhibenda. Librum quemlibet, auctore inscio, notare ac
proscribere, nulla explicatione admissa, nulla disceptatione,
tyrannidi profecto est proximum. Quare heic etiam me
dium est quoddam iter reperiendum, ut auctoritati simul ac
libertati integra sint iura. Interea temporis catholico sic
est agendum, ut auctoritatis quidem observantissimum se
publice profiteatur, suo tamen obsequi ingenio non inter-
mittat. Generatim vero sic de Ecclesia praescribunt : quo-
niam ecclesiasticae potestatis finis ad spiritualia- unice per-
tinet; externum apparatum omnem esse tollendum, quo ilia
ad intuentium oculos magnificentius ornatur. In quo illud
sane negligitur, religionem, etsi ad animos pertineat, non
tamen unice animis concludi ; et honorem potestati impen-
sum in Christum institutorem recidere.
Porro ut totam hanc de fide deque vario eius germine ma-
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 21
teriam absolvamus, restat, Venerabiles Fratres, ut de utro-
rumque explicatione postremo loco modernistarum praecepta
audiamus. Principium hie generale est : in religione, quac
vivat, nihil variabile non esse, atque idcirco variandum.
Hinc gressum faciunt ad illud, quod in eorum doctrinis fere
caput est, videlicet ad cvolutioncm. Dogma igitur, ecclesia,
sacrorum cultus, libri, quos ut sanctos veremur, quin etiam
fides ipsa, nisi intermortua haec omnia velimus, evolutionis
teneri legibus debent. Neque hoc minim videri queat, si ea
prae oculis habeantur, quae sunt de horum singulis a
modernistis tradita. Posita igitur evolutionis lege, evolu
tionis rationem a modernistis ipsis descriptam habemus. Et
primo quoad fidem. Primigenia, inquiunt, fidei forma rudis
et universis hominibus communis fuit, ut quae ex ipsa
hominum natura atque vita oriebatur. Evolutio vitalis pro-
gressum dedit : nimirum non novitate formarum extrinsecus
accedentium, sed ex pervasione in dies auctiore sensus re-
ligiosi in conscientiam. Dupliciter autem progressio ipsa
est facta : negatii e primum, elementum quodvis extraneum,
ut puta ex familia vel gente adveniens, eliminando: dehinc
positive, intellectiva ac morali hominis expolitione, unde
notio divini amplior ac lucidior sens-usque religiosus ex-
quisitior evasit. Progredientis vero fidei eaedem sunt causae
afTerendae, quam quae superius sunt allatae ad eius origi-
nem explicandam. Quibus tamen extraordinarios quosdam
homines addi oportet (quos nos prophetas appellamus, quo-
rumque omnium praestantissimus est Christus) ; turn quia
illi in vita ac sermonibus arcani quidpiam praesetulerunt,
quod fides divinitati teibuebat; turn quia novas nee ante
habitas expericntias sunt nacti, religiosae cuiusque temporis
indigentiae respondentes. Dogmatis autem progressus
inde potissimum enascitur, quod fidei impedimenta sint su-
peranda, vincendi hostes, contradictiones refellendae. Adde
his nisum quemdam perpetuttm ad melius penetranda quae
in arcanis fidei continentur. Sic, ut exempla cetera prae-
tereamus, de Christo factum est ; in quo, divinum illud
qualecumque, quod fides admittebat, ita pedetentim et gra-
datim amplificatum est, ut demum pro Deo haberetur.
Ad evolutionem cultus facit praecipue necessitas ad mores
traditionesque populorum sese accommodandi ; item quorun-
dam virtute actuum fruendi, quam sunt ex usu mutuati.
Tandem pro Ecclesia evolutionis causa inde oritur, quod
22 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE iMODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
componi egeat cum adiunctis historicis cumque civilis re-
giminis publice invectis formis. Sic illi de singulis. Hie
autem, antequam procedamus, doctrina haec de necessitati-
bus seu indigentiis (vulgo dei bisogni significantus appel
lant) probe tit notetur velimus ; etenim, praeterquam om
nium quae vidimus, est veluti basis ac fundamentum famo-
sae illius methodi, quam historicam: dicunt.
In evolutionis doctrina ut adhuc sistamus, illud praeterea
est adyertendum quod, etsi indigentiae seu necessitates ad
evolutionem impellunt ; his tamen unis acta, evolutio, trans-
gressa facile traditionis fines atque ideo a primigenio vitali
principio avulsa, ad ruinam potius quam ad progressionem
traheret. Hinc, modernistarum mentem plenius sequuti,
evolutionem ex conflictione duarum virium evenire dicemus,
quarum altera ad progressionem agit, altera ad conserva-
tionem retrahit. Vis conservatrix viget in Ecclesia, con-
tineturque traditione. Earn vero exerit religiosa auctoritas ;
idque tarn iure ipso, est enim in auctoritatis natura tradi-
tipnem tueri ; tarn re, auctoritas namque, a commutationibus
vitae reducta, stimulis ad progressionem pellentibus nihil
aut vix urgetur. E contra vis ad progrediendum rapiens
atque intimis indigentiis respondens latet ac molitur in pri-
vatorum conscientiis, illorum praecipue qui vitam, ut in-
quiunt, propius atque intimius attingunt. En hie, Venera-
biles Fratres, doctrinam illam exitiosissimam efferre caput
iam cernimus, quae laicos homines in Ecclesiam subinfert
ut progressionis elementa. Ex convento quodam et pacto
inter binas hasce vires, conservatricem et progressionis
fautricem, inter auctoritatem videlicet et conscientias priva-
torum, progressus ac mutationes oriuntur. Nam privatorum
conscientiae, vel harum quaedam, in conscientiam collecti-
yam agunt; haec vero in habentes auctoritatem, cogitque
illos pactiones conflare atque in pacto manere. Ex his
autem pronum est intelligere, cur modernistae mirentur
adeo, quum reprehendi se vel puniri sciunt. Quod eis culpae
vertitur, ipsi pro ofrlcio habent religiose explendo. Necessi
tates conscientiarum nemo melius novit quam ipsi, eo quod
propius illas attingunt, quam. ecclesiastica auctoritas. Eas
igitur necessitates omnes quasi in se colligunt : unde loquendi
publice ac scribendi omcio devinciuntur. Carpat eos, si volet,
auctoritas; ipsi conscientia ofiicii fulciuntur, intimaque ex-
perientia norunt non sibi reprehensiones deberi sed laudes.
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 23
Utique non ipsos latet progressiones sine certaminibus haud
fieri, nee sine victimis certamina ; sint ergo ipsi pro victimis,
sicut prophetae et Christus. Nee ideo quod male habentur,
auctoritati invident: suum illam exsequi munus ultro con-
cedunt. Queruntur tantum quod minime exaudiuntur; sic
enim cursus animorum tardatur : hora tamen rumpendi
moras certissime veniet, nam leges evolutionis coerceri pos-
sunt, infringi omnino non possunt. Institute ergo itinere
pergunt : pergunt, quamvis redarguti et damnati ; incredibi-
lem audaciam fticatae demissionis velamine obducentes.
Cervices quidem simulate inflectunt; manu tamen atque
animo quod susceperunt persequuntur audacius. Sic autem
volentes omnino prudentesque agunt : turn quia tenent,
auctoritatem stimulandam esse non evertendam ; turn quia
necesse illis est intra Ecclesiae septa manere, ut collectivam
conscientiam sensim immutent : quod tamen quum aiunt,
fateri se non advertunt conscientiam collectivam ab ipsis
dissidere, atque ideo nullo eos iure illius se interpretes vendi-
tare.
Sic igitur, Venerabiles Fratres, modernistis auctoribus
atque actoribus, nihil stabile nihil immutabile in Ecclesia
esse oportet. Qua equidem in sententia praecursoribus non
caruere, illis nimirum, de quibus Pius IX decessor Noster
iam scribebat: Isti dizinae revelationis inimici humanum
progression summis laudibus eiferentes, in catholicam reli-
gioucm temerario plane ac sacrilego ausu ilium inducere
vcllcnt, perinde ac si ipsa religio non Dei, scd hominuni
opus est aut philosophicum aliquod inventum, quod humanid
modis perfici queat 1 . De revelatione praesertim ac dog-
mate nulla doctrinae modernistarum novitas ; sed eadem
ilia est, quam in Pii IX syllabo reprobatam reperimus, sic
enunciatam : Dii ina rcvclatio est imperfecta et idcirco subi-
ecta continuo et indefinite progressui, qui hutnanae rationis*
progressiom respondeat 2 : solemnius vero in Vaticana Syno-
do per haec verba: Neque enim fidei doctrina, quam Deus
rcvclcn it, vclut philosophicum inrcntum proposita est hu-
manis ingeniis perficienda, sed tamqnam divinum dc posit nm
Christi sponsae tradita, fidclitcr cnftodienda et infallibiliter
declaranda. Hinc sacronun quoque dogmatum is sensus
perpetuo est rctincndits, queni semcl dcclaravit Sancta Ma
ter Ecclesia,, nee unquam ab co sensu altioris ijitclligentiae
Encycl. Qui pluribus. 9 Nov. 1846. 2 Syll. Prop. 5.
24 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE JMODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
specie et nomine recedenduml : quo profecto explicatio no-
strarum notionum, etiam circa fidem, tantum abest ut impe-
diatur, ut imo adiuvetur ac provehatur. Quamobrem eadem
Vaticana Synodus sequitur : Crescat igitur et multum vehe
ment erque Jroficiat tarn singulorum quam, omnium,, tarn
umus hominis quam totius Ecclesiae, aetatuin et saeculorum
gradibus, intelligentia, scientia, sapientia; sed in suo dmn-
ta.rat genere, in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu ea-
demque sentential.
Sed postquam in modernismi assectatoribus philosophum,
credentem, theologum observavimus, iam nunc restat ut
pariter historicum, criticum, apologetam, reformatorem
spectemus.
Modernistarum quidam, qui componendis historiis se
dedunt, solliciti magnopere videntur ne credantur philosophi ;
profitentur quin immo philosophiae se penitus expertes esse.
Astute id quam quod maxime : ne scilicet cuipiam sit opinio,
eos praeiudicatis imbui philosophiae opinationibus, nee esse
propterea, ut aiunt, omnino obiectivos. Verum tamen est,
historiam illorum aut criticen meram loqui philosophiam ;
quaeque ab iis inferuntur, ex philosophicis eorum principiis
iusta ratiocinatione concludi. Quod equidem facile conside-
ranti patet. Primi tres huiusmodi historicum aut critico-
rum canones, ut diximus, eadem ilia sunt principia, quae
supra ex philosophis attulimus: nimirum agnosticismus,
theorema de transfiguratione rerum per fidem, itemque aliud
quod de defiguratione dici posse visum est. Iam consecu-
tiones ex singulis notemus. Ex agnosticismo historia, non
aliter ac scientia, unice de phaenomenis est. Ergo tarn Deus
quam quilibet in humanis divinus interventus ad fidem reii-
ciendus est, utpote ad illam pertinens unam. Quapropter si
quid occurrat duplici constans elemento, divino atque hu-
mano, cuiusmodi sunt Christus, Ecclesia, Sacramenta alia-
que id genus multa ; sic partiendum erit ac secernendum, ut
quod humanum fuerit historiae, quod divinum tribuatur
fidei. Ideo vulgata apud modernistas discretio inter Christum
historicum et Christum fidei, Ecclesiam historiae et Ec-
clesiam fidei, Sacramenta historiae et Sacramenta fidei,
aliaque similia passim. Deinde hoc ipsum elementum hu
manum, quod sibi historicum sumere videmus, quale illud
. Dei Filius. cap. IV. 2 Loc. cit.
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 25
in monumentis apparet, a fide per transfigitrationem ultra
conditiones historicas elatum dicendum est. Adiectiones
igitur a fide factas rursus secernere oportet, casque ad fidem
ipsam amandare atque ad historiam fidei : sic, quum de
Christo agitur, quidquid conditionem hominis superat, sive
naturalem, prout a psychologia exhibetur, sive ex loco atque
aetate, quibus ille vixit, conflatam. Praeterea, ex tertio
philosophiae principio, res etiam, quae historiae ambitum
non excedunt, cribo veluti cernunt, eliminantque omnia ac
pariter ad fidem amandant quae ipsorum iudicio, in factorum
fogica, ut inquiunt, non sunt vel personis apta non fuerint.
Sic volunt Christum ea non dixisse, quae audientis vulgi
captum excedere videntur. Hinc de reali eius historia delent
et fidei permittunt allegorias omnes quae in sermonibus eius
occurrunt. Quaeremus forsitan qua lege haec segregentur?
Ex ingenio hominis, ex conditione qua sit in civitate usus,
ex educatione, ex adiunctorum facti cuiusquam complexu :
uno verbo, si bene novimus, ex norma, quae tandem ali-
quando in mere subiectivam recidit. Nituntur scilicet Christ!
personam ipsi capere et quasi gerere : quidquid vero paribus
in adiunctis ipsi fuissent acturi, id omne in Christum trans-
ferunt. Sic igitur, ut concludamus, a priori et ex qui-
busdam philosophiae principiis, quam tenent quidem sed
ignorare asserunt, in reali, quam vocant, historia Christum
Deum non esse affirmant nee quidquam divini egisse; ut
hominem vero ea tantum patrasse aut dixisse, quae ipsi, ad
illius se tempora referentes, patrandi aut dicendi ius tri-
buunt.
Ut autem histria ab philosophia, sic critice ab historia
suas accipit conclusiones. Criticus namque, indicia sequutus
ab historico praebita, monumenta partitur bifariam. Quid-
fluid post dictam triplicem obtruncationem superat, reali
historiae assignat; cetera ad fidei historiam seu internam
ablegat. Has enim binas historias accurate distinguunt; et
historiam fidei, quod bene notatum volumus, historiae reali
ut realis est opponunt. Hinc, ut iam diximus, geminus Chris-
tus, realis alter, alter qui nunquam reapse fuit sed ad fidem
pertinet : alter qui certo loco certaque vixit aetate, alter qui
solummodo in piis commentationibus fidei reperitur : eiu-
smodi, exempli causa, est Christus, quern loannis evangelium
exhibet ; quod utique, aiunt, totum quantum est commentatio
est.
26 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
Verum non his philosophiae in historiam dominatus ab-
solvitur. Monumentis, ut diximus, bifariam distributis, adest
iterum philosophus cum suo dogmate vitalis immanentiae ;
atque omnia edicit, quae sunt in ecclesiae historia, per mta-
lem emanationem esse explicanda. Atqui vitalis cuiuscumque
emanationis aut caussa aut conditio est in necessitate seu
indigentia quapiam ponenda : ergo et factum post necessita-
tem concipi oportet, et illud historice huic esse posterius.
Quid turn historicus ? Monumenta iterum, sive quae in libris
sacris continentur sive aliunde adducta, scrutatus, indicem
ex iis conficit singularum necessitatum, turn ad dogma turn
ad cultum sacrorum turn ad alia spectantium, quae in Ec
clesia, altera ex altera, locum habuere. Confectum indicem
critico tradit. Hie vero ad monumenta, quae fidei historiae
destinatur, manum admovet; illaque per aetates singulas sic
disporiit, ut dato indici respondeant singula: eius semper
praecepti memor, factum necessitate, narrationem facto
anteverti. Equidem fieri aliquando possit, quasdam Biblio-
rum partes, ut puta epistolas, ipsum esse factum a necessitate
creatum. Quidquid tamen sit, lex est, monumenti cuiuslibet
aetatem non aliter determinandam esse, quam ex aetate
exortae in Ecclesia uniuscuiusque necessitatis. Distingu-
endum praeterea est inter facti cuiuspiam exordium
eiusdemque explicationem : quod enim uno die nasci potest,
non nisi decursu temporis increments suscipit. Hanc ob
causam debet criticus monumenta, per aetates, ut diximus,
iam distributa bipartiri iterum, altera quae ad originem rei
altera quae ad explicationem pertineant secernens, eaque
rursus ordinare per tempora.
Turn denuo philosopho locus est; qui iniungit historico
sua studia sic exercere, uti evolutionis praecepta legesque
praescribunt. Ad haec historicus monumenta iterum scru-
tari ; inquirere curiose in adiuncta conditionesque, quibus
Ecclesia per singulas aetates sit usa, in eius vim conserva-
tricem, in necessitates tarn internas quam externas quae ad
progrediendum impellerent, in impedimenta quae obfuerunt,
uno verbo, in ea quaecumque quae ad determinandum faxint
quo pacto evolutionis leges fuerint servatae. Post haec
tandem explicationis historiam, per extrema veluti linea-
menta, describit. Succurrit criticus aptatque monumenta reli-
qua. Ad scriptionem adhibetur manus : historia confecta est.
Cui iam, petimus, haec historia inscribenda ? Historico ne
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE .MODERN I STARVM DOCTRINIS 2J
an critico? Neutri profecto; sed philosopho. Tota ibi per
ctyHorisnutin res agitur: et quidem per apriorismum haeresi-
liiis scatcntcm. Miseret sane hominum eiusmodi de quibus
Apostolus diceret: Evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis... di-
centes cniin sc cssc sapicntcs, stiilti facti sitnt 1 ; at bilem
tanien commovent quum Ecclesiam criminantur monumcnta
sic permiscere ac temperare ut suae utilitati loquantur. Nimi-
rum affingunt Ecclesiae, quod sua sibi conscientia apertis-
sime improbari sentiunt.
Ex ilia porro monumentorum per aetates partitione ac
dispositione sequitur sua sponte non posse libros sacros iis
auctoribus trbui, quibus rcapse inscribuntur. Quam ob cau-
sani modernistae passim non dubitant asserere, illos eosclem
libros, Pentateuchum praesertim ac prima tria Evangelia,
ex brevi quadam p rimigenia narratione, crevisse gradatim
accessionibus, interppsitionibus nempe in modum interpre-
tationis sive theologicae sive allegoricae, vel etiam iniectis
ad diversa solummodo inter se iungenda. Nimirum, ut
paucis clariusque dicamus, admittenda est vitalis cvolutio
librorum sacrornm, nata ex evolutioue fidei eidemque re-
spondens. Addunt vero, huius evolutionis vestigia adeo
esse manifesta, ut illius fere historia describi possit. Quin
imnip et reapse describunt, tarn non dubitanter, ut suis ipsos
oculis vidisse crederes scriptores singulos, qui singulis aeta-
tibus ad libros sacros amplificandos admorint manum.
Haec autem ut confirment, criticen, quam tc.vtualcm nomi-
nant, adiutricem appellant; nitunturque persuadere hoc vel
illud factum aut dictum non suo esse loco, aliasque eiusmodi
rationes proferunt. Diceres profecto eos narrationum aut
sermonum quosdam quasi typos praestituisse sibi, unde
certissime iudicent quid suo quid alieno stet loco. Hac
via qui apti esse queant ad decernendum, aestimet qui volet.
Verumtamen qui eos audiat de suis exercitationibus circa
sacros libros affirmantes, unde tot ibi incongrue notata da
tum est deprehendere, credet fere ntillnm ante ipsos homi
num eosdem libros volutasse, neque hos infinitam propemo-
dum Doctorum multitudinem quaquaversus rimatam esse,
ingenio plane et eruditione et sanctitudine vitae longe illis
praestantiorem. Qui equidem Doctores sapientissimi tantum
abfuit ut Scripturas sacras ulla ex parte reprehenderent, ut
immo, quo illas scrutabantur penitius, eo maiores divino
Ad Rom, i, 21-22.
28 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
Numini agerent gratias, quod ita cum hominibus loqui
dignatum esset. Sed heu ! non iis adiumentis Doctores nostn
in sacros libros incubuerunt, quibus modernistae ! scilicet
magistram et ducem non habuere philosophiam, quae initia
duceret a negatione Dei, nee se ipsi iudicandi normam sibi
delegerunt. lam igitur patere arbitramur, cuiusmodi in re
historica modernistarum sit methodus. Praeit philosophus ;
ilium historicus excipit ; pone ex ordine legunt critice turn
interna turn textualis. Et quia primae causae hoc competit
ut virtutem suam cum sequentibus communicet, evidens fit,
criticen eiusmodi non quampiam esse criticen, sed vocari hire
agnosticani, immanentistam, evolutionist am: atque ideo, qui
earn profitetur eaque utitur, errores eidem implicitos profiteri
et catholicae doctrinae adversari. Quam ob rem mirum
magnopere videri possit, apud catholicos homines id genus
critices adeo hodie valere. Id nempe geminam habet causam :
foedus in primis, quo historici criticique huius generis arctis-
sime inter se iunguntur, varietate gentium ac religionum
dissensione posthabita : turn vero audacia maxima, qua quae
quisque effutiat, ceteri uno oro extollunt et, scientiae pro-
gressioni tribuunt ; qua, qui novum portentum aestimare per
se volet, facto agmine adoriuntur: qui neget, ignorantiae
accusent; qui amplectitur ac tuetur, laudibus expr-
nent. Inde hand pauci decepti ; qui, si rem attentius
considerarent, horrerent. - - Ex hoc autem praepo-
tenti errantium dominio, ex hac levium animorum incauta
assensione quaedam circumstantis aeris quasi corruptio
gignitur, quae per omnia permeat luemque diffundit. Sed
ad apologetam transeamus.
Hie apud modernistas dupliciter a philosopho et ipse
pendet. Non directe primum, materiam sibi sumens historian!,
philosopho, ut vidimus, praecipiente conscriptam ; directe
clein, mutuatus ab illo dogmata ac iudicia. Inde illud vulga-
tum in schola modernistarum praeceptum, debere npvam
apologesim controversias de religione dirimere historicis in-
quisitionibus et psychologicis. Quamobrem apologetae
modernistae suum opus aggrediuntur rationalistas monendp,
se religionem vindicare non sacris libris neve ex historiis
vulgo in Ecclesia adhibitis, quae veteri methodo descriptae
sint ; sed ex historia reali, modernis praeceptionibus modern-
aque methodo conflata. Idque non quasi ad hominem argu-
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 29
mentati asserunt, sed quia reapse hanc tantum historiam
vera tradere arbitrantur. De adserenda vero sua in scribendo
sinceritate securi sunt : iani apud rationalistas noti sunt, iam,
ut sub eodem vexillo stipendia merentes, laudati : de qua
laudatione, quam verus catholicus respueret, ipsi sibi gratu-
lantur, eamque reprehensionibus Ecclesiae opponunt. Sed
iam quo pacto apologcsim unus aliquis istorum perficiat
videamus. Finis, quern sibi assequenclum praestituit, hie est :
hominem fidei adhuc expertem eo adducere, ut earn de catho-
lica religione experientiam assequatur, quae ex modernista-
rum scitis unicum fidei est fundamentum. Geminum ad hoc
patet iter: obiectivum alteruni, alterum subiectiviim. Primum
ex agnosticismo procedit ; eoque spectat, ut earn in religione,
praesertim catholica, vitalem virtutem inesse monstret, quae
psychologum quemque itemque historicum bonae mentis
suadeat, oportere in illius historia incogniti aliquid celari.
Ad hoc, ostendere necessum est, catholicam religionem, quae
modo est, earn onmino esse quam Christus fundavit, seu
non aliud praeter progredientem eius germinis explicatio-
nem, quod Christus invexit. Primo igitur germen illud quale
sit, determinandum. Idipsum porro hac formula exhiberi
volunt : Christum adventum regni Dei nunciasse, quod brevi
foret constituendum, eiusque ipsum fore Messiam, actorem
nempe divinitus datum atque ordinatorem. Post haec de
monstrandum, qua ratione id germen, semper immanens in
catholica religione ac permanent, sensim ac secundum hi
storiam sese evolverit aptaritque succedentibus adiunctis,
ex iis ad se ritaliter trahens quidquid doctrinalium, cul-
tualium, ecclesiasticarum formarum sibi esset utile; interea
vero impedimenta si quae occurrerent superans, adversaries
profligans, insectationibus quibusvis pugnisque superstes.
Postquam autem haec omnia, impedimenta nimirum, ad
versaries, insectationes, pugnas, itemque vitam foecundita-
temque Ecclesiae id genus fuisse monstratum fuerit, ut,
quamvis evolutionis leges in eiusdem Ecclesiae historia inco-
lumes appareant, non tamen eidem historiae plene explican-
dae sint pares ; incognitwn coram stabit, suaque sponte se
offeret. Sic illi. In qua tota ratiocinatione unum tamen
non advertunt, determinationem illam germinis primigenii
deberi unice apriorisnw philosophi agnostici et evolutio-
nistae, et germen ipsum sic gratis ab eis definiri ut eorum
causae congruat.
3O LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE .MODERN I STARVM DOCTRINIS
Dum tamen catholicam religionem recitatis argunientatio-
nibus asserere ac suadere elaborant apologetae novi, clant
ultro et concedunt, plura in ea esse quae animos offendant.
Qui etiam, non obscura quadam voluptate, in re quoque
dogmatica errores contradictionesque reperire se palam dicti-
tant: subdunt tamen, haec non solum admittere excusatio-
nem, sed, quod mirum esse oportet, iuste ac legitime esse
prolata. Sic etiam, secundum ipsos, in sacris libris, plurima
in re scientifica vel historica errore afficiuntur. Sed, inquiunt,
non ibi de scientiis agi aut historia, verum de religione tan-
tum ac re morum. Scientiae illic et historia integumenta
sunt quaedam, quibus experientiae religiosae et morales
obteguntur ut facilius in vtilgus propagarentur ; quod qui-
dem vulgus cum non aliter intelligeret, perfectior illi sci-
entia aut historia non utilitati sed nocumento fuisset. Cete-
rum, addunt, libri sacri, quia natura sunt religiosi, vitam
ii ecessario vivunt : iam vitae sua quoque est veritas et logica,
alia profecto a veritate et logica rationali, quin immo alterius
omnino ordinis, veritas scilicet comparationis ac proportio-
nis turn ad medium (sic ipsi dicunt) in quo vivitur, turn ad
finem ob quern vivitur. Demum eo usque progrediuntur ut,
nullii adhibita temperatione, asserant quidquid per vitam
expl catur, id omne verum esse ac legitimum. Nos equi-
dem, Venerabiles Fratres, quibus una atque unica est veritas,
quique sacros libros sic aestimamus quod Spiritu Sancto
inspirante conscripti Deum habent auctoreni*-, hoc idem esse
affirmamus ac mendacium utilatis sen officiosum ipsi Deo
tribuere ; verbisque Augustini asserimus : Admisso semel in
tantum. auctoritatis fasti gium offtcioso aliquo mendacio, nulla
illorum librorum particula remanebit, quae non ut cuique
wdebitur vel ad mores difficiUs vel ad ildem incredibilis,
eddem perniciosissima regula ad mentientis auctoris conci
lium ofdciumque referatur*. Unde fiet quod idem sanctus
Doctor adiungit: In eis, scilicet Scripturis, quod vult qui-
sque credet, quod non vult non credet. Sed modernistae
apologetae progediuntur alacres. Concedunt praeterea, in
sacris libris eas subinde ratiocinationes occurrere ad doctri-
nam quampiam probandam, quae nullo rationali fundamento
regantur; cuiusmodi sunt quae in prophetiis nituntur. Ve
rum has quoque defendunt quasi artificia quaedam praedica-
tionis, quae a vita legitima fiunt. Quid amplius ? Permittunt,
Cone. Vat. De Rev., c. 2. 2 Epist. 28.
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE .MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 3!
immo vero asserunt, Christum ipsum in indicando tempore
adventus regni Dei manifeste errasse : neque id mirum,
inquiunt, videri debet; nam et ipse vitae legibus tenebatur!
Quid post haec de Ecclesiae dogmatibus ? Scatent haec
etiam apertis oppositionibus : sed, praeterquamquod a logica
vitali admittuntur, veritati symbolicae non adversantur ; in
iis quippe de infinite agitur, cuius infiniti stint respectus.
Demum, adeo haec omnia probant tuenturque, ut profiteri
non dubitent, nullnm Infinite honorem haberi excellentiorem
quam contradicentia de ipso affirmando ! Probata vero
contradictione, quid non probabitur?
Attamen qui nondum credat non obicctivis solum argu-
inentis ad fidem disponi potest, verum etiam subicctivis.
Ad qucm fincm modernistae apologetae ad immanentiac
doctrinam revertuntur. Elaborant nempe ut homini persua-
deant. in ipso atque in intimis eius naturae ac vitae recessi-
bus celari cuiuspiam religionis desiderium et exigentiam,
nee religionis cuiusctimque sed talis omnino qualis catholica
est ; hanc enim postnlari prorsus inquiunt ab explicatione
vitae perfecta. Hie autem queri vehementer Nos iterum
oportet, non desiderari e catholicis hominibus, qui, quamvis
immanentiae doctrinam ut doctrinam reiiciunt, ea tamen
pro apologesi utuntur; idque adeo incauti faciunt, ut in
natnra humana non capacitatem solum et convenientiam
videantur admittere ad ordinem supernaturalem, quod qui-
dem apologetae catholic! opportunis adhibitis temperatio-
nibus demonstrarunt semper, sed germanam verique nomi-
nis exigentiam. Ut tamen verius dicamus, haec catholicae
religionis exigentia a modernistis invehitur, qui volunt
mocleratiores atidiri. Nam qui integralistae appellari queunt,
ii homini nondum credenti ipsum germen, in ipso latens,
dcmonstrari volunt, quod in Christi conscientia fuit atque
ab eo hominibus transmissum est. Sic igitur, Venerabiles
Fratres, apologeticam modernistarum methodum, summatim
descriptam, doctrinis eorum plane congruentem agnoscimus :
methodum profecto, uti etiam doctrinas, errorum plenas,
non ad aedificandum aptas sed ad destruendum, non ad
catholicos efficiendos sed ad catholicos ipsos ad haeresim
trahendos, immo etiam ad religionis cuiuscumque omnimo-
dam eversionem !
Pauca demum superant addenda de modernista ut re-
32 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE .MODERN I STARVM DOCTRINIS
formator est. lam ea, quae hue usque loquuti sumus, abunde
manifestant quanto et quam acri innovandi studio hi homines
ferantur. Pertinet autem hoc studium ad res omnino omnes,
quae apud catholicos sunt. Innovari volunt philosophiam
in sacris praesertim Seminariis : ita ut, amandata philosophia
scholasticorum ad historian! philosophiae inter cetera quae
iam obsoleverunt systemata, adolescentibus moderna ,tra-
datur philosophia, quae una vera nostraeque aetati re-
spodens. Ad theologiam innovandam, volunt, quam nos
rationalem dicimus, habere fundamentum modernam philo
sophiam. Positivam vero theologiam, niti maxime postulant
in historia dogmatum. Historian! quoque scribi et tradi
expetunt ad suam methodum praescriptaque moderna.
Dogmata eorumdemque evolutionem cum scientia et hi
storia componenda edicunt. Ad catechesim quod spectat,
ea tantum in catecheticis libris notari postulant dogmata,
quae innovata fuerint sintque ad vulgi captum. Circa
sacrorum cultum, minuendas inquiunt externas religiones
prohibendumve ne crescant. Quamvis equidem alii, qui sym-
bolismo magis favent, in hac re indulgentiores se praebeant.
Regimen ecclesiae omni sub respectu reformandum clami-
tant, praecipue tamen sub disciplinari ac dogmatico. Ideo
intus forisque cum moderna, ut aiunt, conscientia compo-
nendum quae tota ad democratiam vergit : ideo inferior!
clero ipsisque laicis suae in regimine partes tribuendae, et
collecta nimium contractaque in centrum auctoritas disperti-
enda. Romana consilia sacris negotiis gerendis immutari
pariter volunt; in primis autem turn quod a sancto officio
turn quod ab indie e appellatur. Item ecclesiastici regiminis.
actionem in re politica et sociali variandam contendunt, ut
simul a civilibus ordinationibus exulet. eisdem tamen se
aptet ut suo illas spiritu imbuat. In re morum, illud
asciscunt americanistarum scitum, activas virtutes passivis
anteponi oportere, atque illas prae istis exercitatione pro-
moveri. Clerum sic comparatum petunt ut veterem referat
demissionem animi et paupertatem ; cogitatione insuper et
facto cum modernismi praeceptis consentiat. Sunt demum
qui, magistris protestantibus dicto lubentissime audientes,
sacrum ipsum in sacerdotio coelibatum sublatum desiderent.
Quid igitur in Ecclesia intactum relinquunt, quod non ab
ipsis nee secundum ipsorum pronunciata sit reformandum?
1907, vol. 3, fasc. 1374. 47. 18 settembre 1907.
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ^ODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 33
In tota hac modernistarum doctrina exponenda, Venera-
hiles Fratres, videbimur forte alicui diutius immorati. Id
tamen omnino oportuit, tuin nc, ut assolet, de ignoratione
rmmi suarum ab illis reprehendamur ; turn ut pateat, quum
de modernismo est quaestio, non de vagis doctrinis agi
nulloque inter se nexu coniunctis, veruni de uno compacto-
que veluti corporc, in quo si ununi admittas, cetera necessa-
rio sequantur. Ideo didactica fere ratione usi sumus, nee
barbara aliquando respuimus verba, quae inodernistae
usurpant. lam systema universum uno quasi obtutu re-
spicientes, nemo mirabitur si sic illud definimus, ut omnium
haereseon conlectum esse affirmemus. Certe si quis hoc sibi
proposuisset, omnium quotquot fuerunt circa fidem errores
succum veluti ac sanguinem in unum conferre; rem nun-
quam plenius perfecisset, quam modernistae perfecerunt.
Immo vero tanto hi ulterius progressi sunt, ut, non modo
catholicam religionem, sed omnem penitus, quod iam innui-
mus, religionem deleverint. Hinc enim rationalistarum plau-
sus : hinc qui liberius apertiusque inter rationalistas loquun-
tur, nullos se efBcaciores quam modernistas auxiliatores
invenisse gratulantur. - - Redeamus enimvero tantisper,
Venerabiles Fratres, ad exitiosissimam illam agnosticismi
doctrinam. Ea scilicet, ex parte intellectus, omnis ad Deum
via praecluditur homini, dum aptior sterni putatur ex parte
euiusdam animi sensus et actionis. Sed hoc quam perperam,
quis non videat ? Sensus enim animi actioni rei respondet,
quam intellectus vel externi sensus proposuerint. Demito
intellcctum ; homo externos sensus, ad quos iam fertur,
proclivius sequetur. Perperam iterum ; nam phantasiae quae-
vis de sensu religiose communem sensum non expugnabunt :
communi autem sensu docemur, perturbationem aut occupa-
tionem animi quampiam, non adiumento sed impedimento
esse potius ad investigationem veri, veri inquimus ut in se
est; nam veruni illud alterum subiectivwn, fructus interni
sensus et actionis, si quidem ludendo est aptum, nihil admo-
dum homini confert, cuius scire maxime interest sit necne
extra ipsum Deus, cuius in manus aliquando incidet. Ex-
pcricntiain enimvero tanto operi adiutricem inferunt. Sed
quid haec ad sensum ilium animi adiiciat? Nil plane, prae-
terquam quod vehementiorem faciat ; ex qua vehementia
fiat proportione firmior persuasio de veritate obiecti. Iam
haec duo profecto.non efficiunt ut sensus ille animi desinat
34 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
esse sensus, neque eius immutant naturam, semper de-
ceptioni obnoxiam, nisi regatur intellectu ; immo vero illam
confirmant et iuvant, nam sensus quo intensior, eo potiore
iure est sensus. Cum vero de religiose sensu hie agamus
deque experientia in eo contenta, nostis probe, Venerabiles
Fratres, quanta in hac re prudentia sit opus, quanta item
doctrina quae ipsam regat prudentiam. Nostis ex animorum
usu, quorundam praecipue in quibus eminet sensus ; nostis
ex librorum consuetudine, qui de ascesi tractant ; qui quam-
vis modernistis in nullo sunt pretio, doctrinam tamen longe
longe solidiorem, subtilioremque ad observandum sagacita-
tem praeseferunt, quam ipsi sibi arrogant. Equidem
Nobis amentis esse videtur aut saltern imprudentis sum-
mopere pro veris, nulla facta investigatione, experientias
intimas habere, cuiusmodi modernistae venditant. Cur
vero, tit per transcurstim dicamus, si hartim ex-
perientiarum tanta vis est ac firmitas, non eadem
tribuatur illi, quam plura catholicorum millia se
habere asserunt de devio itinere, quo modernistae incedunt?
Haec ne tantum falsa atque fallax ? Hominum autem pars
maxima hoc firmiter tenet tenebitque semper, sensu solum
et experientia, nullo mentis ductu atque lumine, ad Dei noti-
tiam pertingi nunquam posse. Restat ergo iterum atheismus
ac religio nulla. Nee modernistae meliora sibi promittant
ex asserta symbolismi doctrina. Nam si quaevis intellectu-
alia, ut inqtiitmt, elementa nihil nisi Dei symbola sunt;
ecquid symbolum non sit ipsum D ei nomen aut personalita-
tis divinae? quod si ita, iam de divina personalitate ambigi
poterit, patetque ad pantheismum via. Eodem autem,
videlicet ad purum putumque pantheismum, ducit doctrina
alia de immanentia divina. Etenim hoc quaerimus : an eiu-
smodi immanentia Detim ab homine distinguat necne. Si
distinguit, quid turn a catholica doctrina differt, aut doctri
nam de externa revelatione cur reiicit? Si non distinguit,
pantheismum habemus. Atqui immanentia haec modernista-
rum vult atque admittit omne conscientiae phaenomenon
ab homine ut homo est proficisci. Legitima ergo ratiocinatio
inde infert unum idemque esse Deum cum homine : ex quo
pantheismus. Distinctio demum, quam praedicant, inter
scientiam et fidem, non aliam admittit consecutionem.
Obiectum enim scientiae in cognoscibilis realitate ponunt;
fidei e contra in incognoscibilis. lamvero incognoscibile inde
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 35
omnino constituitur, quod inter obiectam materiam et in-
tellectum nulla adsit proportio. Atqui hie propprtionis de-
fectus nunquam, nee in modernistarum doetrina, auferri
potest. Ergo incognoscibile credenti aeque ac philosopho in-
cognoscibile semper manebit. Ergo si qua habebitur religio,
haec erit realitatis incognoscibilis ; quae cur etiam mundi
animus esse nequeat, quern rationalistae quidam admittunt,
non videmus profecto. Sed haec modo sufficiant ut abunde
pateat quam multiplici itinere doetrina modernistarum ad
atheismum trahat et ad religionem omnem abolendam. Equi-
dem protestantium error primus hac via gradum iecit ;
sequitur modernistarum error ; proxime atheismus ingre-
dietur.
Ad penitiorem modernismi notitiam, et ad tanti vulneris
remedia aptius quaerenda, iuvat nunc, Venerabiles Fratres,
causas aliquantum scrutari unde sit ortum aut nutritum
malum. Proximam continentemque causam in errore
mentis esse ponendam, dubitationem non habet. Remotas
vero binas agnoscimus, curiositatem et superbiam. Curio-
sitas, ni sapienter cohibeatur, sufficit per se una ad quoscum-
que explicandos errores. Unde Gregorius XVI decessor
Noster hire scribebat 1 : Lugendnm valde est quonam prola-
bantnr humanae rationis deliramenta, ubi quis novis rebus
stndcat, atque contra Apostoli monitum nitatur phis sapere
qiiam oportcat sap ere, sibique nimium praefidens, veritatem
quacrcndam aittumct c.rtra catholicam Ecclcsiam, in qua
absquc vel levissimo crroris cocno ipsa invenitur. Sed
longe maiorem ad obcoecandum animum et in errorem in-
ducendum cohibet efficientiam superbia: quae in modernismi
doetrina quasi in domicilio -collocata, ex ea undequaque ali-
menta concipit, omnesque induit aspeetus. Superbia enim
sibi audacius praefidunt, ut tamquam universprum normam
se ipsi habeant ac proponant Superbia vanissime gloriantur
quasi uni sapientiam possideant, dicuntque elati atque inflati :
\on sitinns sicnt cctcri homines; et ne cum ceteris compa-
rentur, nova quaeque etsi absurdissima amplectuntur et
somniant. Superbia subiectionem omnem abiiciunt con-
tenduntque auctoritatem cum libertate componendam.
Superbia sui ipsorum obliti, de aliorum reforma-
tione unice cogitant, nullaque est apud ipsos gradus, nulla
vel supremae potestatis reverentia. Nulla profecto brevior
Ep. Encycl., Singular! Xos. / kal. iul. 1834.
36 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE iMODERNlSTARVM DOCTRINIS
et expeditior ad modernismum est via, quam superbia. Si
qui catholicus e laicorum coetu, si quis etiam sacerdos chri-
stianae vitae praecepti sit immemor, quo iubemur abnegare
nos ipsi si Christum sequi velimus, nee auferat superbiam
de corde suo ; nae is ad modernistarum errores amplectendos
aptissimus est quam qui maxime ! Quare, Venerabiles
Fratres, hoc primum vobis officium esse oportet superbis
eiusmodi hominibus obsistere, eos tenuioribus atque obscu-
nonbus muneribus occupare, ut eo amplius deprimantur
quo se tollunt altius et ut, humiliore loco positi, minus ha-
beant ad nocendum potestatis. Praeterea turn ipsi per vos
turn per seminariorum moderatores, alumnos sacri cleri scru-
temini diligentissime ; et si quos superbo ingenio repereritis,
eos fortissime a sacerdotio repellatis. Quod utinam peractum
semper fuisset ea qua opus erat vigilantia et constantia!
Quod si a moralibus causis ad eas quae ab intellectu sunt
veniamus, prima ac potissima occurret ignorantia. Enim-
vero modernistae, quotquot sunt, qui doctores in Ecclesia
esse ac videri volunt, modernam philosophiam plenis buccis
extollentes aspernatique scholasticam, non aliter illam, eius
fuco et fallaciis decepti, sunt amplexi, quam quod alteram
ignorantes prorsus, omni argumento caruerunt ad notionum
confusionem tollendam et ad sophismata refellenda. Ex
connubio autem falsae philosophiae cum fide illorum syse-
ma, tot tanisque erroribus abundans, ortum habuit.
Cui propagando utinam minus studii et curarum impende-
rent ! Sed eorum tanta est alacritas, adeo indefessus labor,
ut plane pigeat tantas insumi vires ad Ecclesiae perniciem,
quae, si recte adhibitae, summo forent adiumento. Gemina
vero ad fallendos animos utuntur arte; primum enim com-
planare quae obstant nituntur, turn autem quae prosint stu-
diosissime perquirunt atque impigre patientissimeque adhi-
bent. - Tria sunt potissimum quae suis illi conatibus adver-
sari sentiunt: scholastica philosophandi methodus, Patrum
auctoritas _et traditio, magisterium ecclesiasticum. Contra
haec acerrima illorum pugna. Idcirco p v kilosophiam ac theo-
logiam scholasticam derident passim atque contemnunt. Sive
id ex ignoratione faciant sive ex metu, sive potius ex utraque
causa, certum est studium novarum rerum cum odio scho-
lasticae methodi coniungi semper: nullumque est indicium
manifestius quod quis modernismi doctrinis favere incipiat,
quam quum incipit scholasticam horrere metodum. Me-
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 37
minerint modernistae ac modernistarum studios! damnatio-
nem, qua Pius IX censuit reprobandam propositionem quae
diceret 1 : Methodus et principia, quibus antiqiii doctores
scholastics theologiam excoluerunt, tentporum nostrorum
necessitatibus scientiarumque progressui minime congruunt.
Traditionis vero vim et naturam callidissime pervertere
elaborant, ut illius monumentum ac pondus elidant. Stabit
tamen semper catholicis auctoritas Nicaenae Synodi II, quae
damnavit cos, qui audent... secundum scelestos hacreticos ec-
clesiasticas traditioncs sperncrc et novitatem quamlibet ex-
cogitare... aut excogitare prove out astute ad subvertendum
quidquam ex legitimis traditionibus Ecclesiae cajholicae.
Stabit Synodi Constantinopolitanae IV professio: Igitur
regular, quae sanctae catholicae et apostolicae Ecclesiae tarn
a sanctis famosissimis Apostolis, quam ab orthodoxorutn
universalibus necnon et localibus Conciliis vel etiam a quo-
libet deiloquo Patre ac magistro Ecclesiae traditae sunt, ser-
vare ac custodire profitemur. Unde Romani Pontifices Pius
IV itemque huius nominis IX in professione fidei haec
quoque addi voluerunt: Apostolicas et ecclesiasticas tradi-
tiones, reliquasque eiusdcni Ecclesiae observationes et con-
stitutiones firmissime admitto et amplector. Nee secus quam
de Traditione, iudicant modernistae de sanctissimis Ecclesiae
Patribus. Eos temeritate summa traducunt vulgo ut omni
quidem cultu dignissimos, ast in re critica et historica
ignorantiae summae, quae, nisi ab aetate qua vixerunt, excu-
sationem non habeat. Denique ipsius ecclesiastici magiste-
rii auctoritatem toto studio minuere atque infirmare conan-
tur, turn eius originem, naturam, iura sacrilege pervertendo,
turn contra illam adversariorum calumnias libere ingemi-
nando. Valent enim de modernistarum grege, quae moerore
summo Decessor Noster scribebat : Ut mysticam Sponsam
Christi, qui lux vera est, in contcmptum et invidiam voca-
rcnt tencbrarum filii consuerere in vulgus earn vecordi ca~
lumnia impetcrc, et, conversa rerum nominiimque rationc
et z"i, compellare obscuritatis amicam, altriccm ignorantiae,
scientiarinn lumini et progressui infcnsani 1 . ^Quae cum
sint ita, Venerabiles Fratres, mirum non est, si catholicos
homines, qui strenue pro Ecclesia decertant, summa malevo-
lentia et livore modernistae impetunt. Nullum est iniuriarum
^yll. prop. 13.
J Motu-pr. Ut mysticam. 14 martii 1891.
38 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
genus, quo illos non lacerent : sed ignorantiae passim pervi-
caciaeque accusant. Quod si refellentium eruditionem et vim
pertimescant : efficaciam derogant coniurato silentio. Quae
quidem agendi ratio cum catholicis eo plus habet invidiae,
quod, eodem tempore nulloque modo adhibito, perpetuis
laudibus evehunt quotquot cum ipsis consentiunt; horum
libros nova undique spirantes grandi plausu excipiunt ac
suspiciunt ; quo quis audentius vetera evertit, traditionem et
magisterium ecclesiasticum respuit, eo sapientiorem praedi-
cant; denique, quod quisque bonus horreat, si quern Ec-
clesia damnatione perculerit, hunc, facto agmine, non solum
palam et copiosissime laudant, sed ut veritatis martyrem
pene venerantur. Toto hoc, turn laudationum turn impro-
periorum strepitu percussae ac .turbatae iuniorum mentes,
hinc ne ignorantes audiant inde ut sapientes videantur,
cogente intus curiositate ac superbia, dant victas saepe ma-
nus ac modernismo se dedunt.
Sed iam ad artificia haec pertinent, quibus modernistae
merces suas vendunt. Quid enim non moliuntur ut assecla-
rum numerum, augeant? In sacris Seminariis, in Universi-
tatibus studiorum magisteria aucupantur, quae sensim in
pestilentiae cathedras vertunt. Doctrinas suas, etsi forte
implicite, in templis ad concionem dicentes inculcant ; aper-
tius in congressibus enunciant ; in socialibus institutis intru-
dunt atque extollunt. Libros, ephemeridas, commentaria suo
vel alieno nomine edunt. Units aliquando idemque scriptor
multiplici nomine utitur, ut simulata auctorum multitudine
incauti decipiantur. Brevi, actione, verbis, proelo nihil non
tentant, ut eos febri quadam phreneticos diceres. Haec
autem omnia quo f ructu ? luvenes magno numero deflemus,
egregiae quidem illos spei, quique Ecclesiae utilitatibus opti-
mam navarent operam, a recto tramite deflexisse. Plurimos
etiam dolemus, qui, quamvis non eo processerint, tamen,
corrupto quasi ae re hausto, laxius admodum cogitare, eloqui,
scribere consuescunt quam catholicos decet. Sunt hi de laico-
rum coetu, sunt etiam de sacerdotum numero; nee, quod
minus fuisset expectandum, in ipsis religiosorum familiis
desiderantur. Rem biblicam ad modernistarum leges tractant.
In conscribendis historiis, specie adserendae veritatis, quid-
quid Ecclesiae maculam videtur aspergere, id, manifesta
quadam voluptate, in lucem diligentissime ponunt. Sacras
populares traditiones, apriorismo quodam ducti, delere omni
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE MODERN I STARVM DOCTRINIS 39
ope conantur. Sacras Reliquias vetustate commendatas cle-
spectui habent. Vano scilicet desiderio feruntur ut mundus
de ipsis loquatur ; quod futurum non autumant si ea tantum
dicant, quae semper quaeve ab omnibus sunt dicta. Interea
suadent forte sibi obsequium se praestare Deo et Ecclesiae :
reapse tamcn offendunt gravissime, non suo tantum ipsi
opere, quantum ex mente qua ducuntur, et quia perutilem
operam modernistarum ausibus conferunt.
Huic tantorum errorum agmini clam aperteque invadenti
Leo XIII decessor Noster fel. rec., praesertim in re biblica,
occurrere fortiter dicto actuque conatus est. Sed moderni-
stae, ut Jam vidimus, non his facile terrentur armis : obser-
vantiam demissionemque animi affectantes summam, verba
Pontificis Maximi in suas partes detorserunt, actus in alios
quoslibet transtulere. Sic malum robustius in dies factum.
Quamobrem, Venerabiles Fratres, moras diutius non inter-
ponere decretum est, atque efficaciora moliri. Vos tamen
oramus et obsecramus, ne in re tarn gravi vigilantiam, dili-
gentiam, fortitudinem vestram desiderari vel minimum pati-
amini. Quod vero a vobis petimus et expectamus, idipsum
et petimus aeque et expectamus, a ceteris animarum pastori-
bus, ab educatoribus et magistris sacrae iuventutis, imprimis
autem a summis religiosarum familiarum magistris.
I. Primo igitur ad studia quod attinet, volumus probeque
mandamus ut philosophia scholastica studiorum sacrorum
fundamentum ponatur. Utique, si quid a doctoribus scho-
lasticis vel nimia subtilitate quaesitum, vel parum consid
erate traditnm; si quid cum exploratis posterioris aevi doc-
trinis mimis cohaerens vel denique quoquo modo non
probabile; id nullo pacto in animo est aetati nostrae ad
imitandum proponi 1 . Quod rei caput est, philosophiam scho-
lasticam quum sequendam praescribimus, earn praecipue
intelligimus, quae a sancto Thoma Aquinate est tradita ; de
qua quidquid a Decessore Nostro sancitum est, id omne
vigere volumus, et qua sit opus instauramus et confirma-
mus, stricteque ab universis servari iubemus. Episcoporum
erit, sicubi in Seminariis neglecta haec fuerint, ea ut in
posterum custodiantnr urgere atque exi^ere. Eadem religio-
sorum Ordinum moderatoribus praecipimus. Magistros au
tem monemus ut rite hoc teneant, Aquinatem deserere,
Leo XIII, Enc. Aeterni Patris.
4O LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOGTRINIS
praesertim in re metaphysica, non sine magno detrimento
esse.
Hoc ita posito philosophiae fundamento, theologicum
aedificium extruatur diligentissime. Theologiae studium,
Venerabiles Fratres, quanta potestis ope provehite, ut clerici
e seminariis egredientes praeclara illius existimatione mag-
iioque amore imbuantur, illudque semper pro deliciis ha-
beant. Nam in magna et multiplici disciplinarum copia quae
menti veritatis cupidae obiicitur, neminem latet sacram The
ologian ita principem sibi locum wndicare, ut vetus sapien-
tium e fatum sit, ceteris scientiis et artibus officium incum-
bere, ut ei inserviant ac velut ancillarum more famulentur. 2 .
Addimus heic, eos etiam Nobis laude dignos videri, qui,
incolumi reverentia erga Traditionem et Patres et ecclesias
ticum magisterium, sapienti iudicio catholicisque usi normis
(quod non aeque omnibus accidit) theologiam positivam,
mutuato a veri nominis historia lumine, collustrare studeant.
Maior profecto quam antehac positivae theologiae ratio est
habenda; id tamen sic fiat, ut nihil scholastica detrimenti
capiat, iique reprehendantur, utpote qui modernistarum rem
gerunt, quicumque positivam sic extollunt ut scholasticam
theologiam despicere videantur.
De profanis vero disciplinis satis sit revocare quae De-
cessor Noster sapientissime dixit 3 : In rerum natnralium
consideratione strenue adlaboretis: quo in genere nostrorum
tetnporum ingeniosa inventa et ntiliter ausa, sicut iwre ad-
mirantur aequales, sic posteri perpetua commendatione et
laude celebrabunt. Id tamen nullo sacrorum studiorum
damno ; quod idem Decessor Noster gravissimis hisce verbis
prosequutus monuit 3 : Quorum causam errorum, si quis dili-
gentius investigauerit, in eo potissimum sitatn esse intelliget,
quod nostris hisce temporibus, quanta rerum naturaliunti
studia vehetnentius fervent, tanto magis severiores altioresque
disciplinae denoruerint quaedam enim fere in oblivione
hominum conticescunt; quaedam remisse leviterque tractan-
tur, et quod indignum est, splendore pristinae dignitatis
deleto, pramtate sententiarum et immanibus opinionum po-
tentis innciuntur. Ad hanc igitur legem naturalium discipli-
narum studia in sacris seminariis temperari praecipimus.
2 Leo XIII, Litt. ap. In magna, 10 dec. 1889.
Alloc. 7 martii 1880.
cit.
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE iMODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 4!
II. His omnibus praeceptionibus turn Nostris turn De-
cessoris Nostri oculos adiici oportet, quum de Seminariorum
vel Universitatum catholicarum moderatoribus et magistris
eligendis agendum crit, Quicumque modo quopiam mo-
dernismo imbuti fuerint, ii, nullo habito rei cuiusvis re-
spectu, turn a regundi turn a docendi munere arceatur; eo
si iam funguntur, removeantur: item qui modernismo clam
aperteve favent, aut modernistas laudando eorumque cul-
pam excusando, aut Scholasticam et Patres et Magisterium
ecclesiasticum carpendo, aut ecclesiasticae potestati, in quo-
cumque ea demum sit, obedientiam detrectando: item qui
in historica re, vel archeologica, vel biblica nova student :
item qui sacras negligunt disciplinas, aut profanas antepo-
nere videntur. Hoc in negotio, Venerabiles Fratres, prae-
sertim in magistrorum delectu, nimia numquam erit animad-
versio et constantia ; ad doctorum enim exemplum plerum-
que componuntur discipuli. Quare, officii conscientia freti,
prudenter hac in re at fortiter agitote.
Pari vigilantia et severitate ii sunt cognoscendi ac
deligendi, qui sacris initiari postulent. Procul, procul esto
a sacro ordine novitatum amor: superbos et contumaces
animos odit Deus ! Theologiae ac luris canonici laurea
nullus in posterum donetur, qui statum curriculum in scho-
lastica philosophia antea non elaboraverit. Quod si donetur,
inaniter donatus esto. Quae de celebrandis Universitatibus
Sacrum Consilium Episcoporum et Religiosorum negotiis
praepositum clericis Italiae turn saecularibus turn regulari-
bus praecepit anno MDCCCXCVI ; ea ad nationes omnes
posthac pertinere decernimus. Clerici et sacerdotes qui
catholicae cuipiam Universitati vel Instituto item catholico
nomen dederint, disciplinas, de quibus magisteria in his
fuerint, in civili Universitate ne ediscant. Sicubi id permis-
sum, in posterum ut ne fiat edicimus. Episcopi, qui huiu-
smodi Universitatibus vel Institutis moderandis praesunt,
curent diligentissime ut quae hactenus imperavimus, ea
constanter serventur.
III. Episcoporum pariter officium est modernistarum
scripta quaeve modernismum olent provehuntque, si in lucem
edita ne legantur cavere, si nondum edita prohibere ne
edantur. Item libri omnes, ephemerides, commentaria
42 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
quaevis huius generis neve adolescentibus in Seminariis
neve auditoribus in Universitatibus permittantur : non enim
minus haec nocitura, quam quae contra mores conscripta;
immo etiam magis, quod christianae vitae initia vitiant.
Nee secus iudicandum de quorumdam catholicorum scriptio-
nibus, hominum ceteroqui non malae mentis, sed qui theolo-
gicae disciplinae expertes ac recentiori philosophia imbuti,
hanc cum fide componere nituntur et ad fidei, ut inquiunt,
utilitates transferre. Hae, quia nullo metu versantur" ob
auctorum nomen bonamque existimationem, plus periculi
afferunt ut sensim ad modernismum quis vergat.
Generatim vero, Venerabiles Fratres, ut in re tarn gravi
praecipiamus ; quicumque in vestra uniuscuiusque dioecesi
prostant libri ad legendum perniciosi, ii ut exulent fortiter
contendite, solemni etiam interdictione usi. Etsi enim Apos-
tolica Sedes ad huiusmodi scripta e medio tollenda omnem
operam impendat; adeo tamen iam numero crevere, ut vix
notandis omnibus pares sint vires. Ex quo fit, ut serior
quandoque paretur medicina, quum per longiores moras
malum invaluit. Volumus igitur ut sacrorum Antistites,
omni metu abiecto, prudentia carnis deposita, malorum cla-
moribus posthabitis, suaviter quidem sed constanter suas
quisque partes suscipiant; memores quae Leo XIII in Con-
stitutione apostolica Officiorum praescribebat : Ordinarii,
etiam tamquam Delegati Sedis Apostolicae, libros aliaque
scripta noxia in sua dioecesi edita vel diffusa proscribere
et e manibus fidelium auferre studeant. lus quidem his ver-
bis tribuitur sed etiam ofricium mandatur. Nee quispiam hoc
munus officii implevisse autumet, si unum alterumve librum
ad Nos detulerit, dum alii bene multi dividi passim ac per-
vulgari sinuntur. Nihil autem vos teneat, Venerabiles
Fratres, quod forte libri alicuius auctor ea sit alibi facultate
donatus, quam vulgo Imprimatur appellant : turn quia simu-
lata esse possit, turn quia vel negligentius data vel benigni-
tate nimia nimiave fiducia de auctore concepta, quod postre-
mum in Religiosorum forte ordinibus aliquando evenit.
Accedit quod, sicut non idem omnibus convenit cibus, ita
libri qui altero in loco sint adiaphori, nocentes in altero ob
rerum complexus esse queunt. Si igitur Episcopus, audita
prudentum sententia, horum etiam librorum aliquem in sua
dioecesi notandum censuerit, potestatem ultro facimus immo
et officium mandamus. Res utique decenter fiat, prohibitio-
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE ,MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 43
nem, si sufficiat, ad clerum unum coercendo; integro tamen
bibliopolarum catholicorum officio libros ab Episcopo notatos
minime venales habendi. : Et quoniam de his sermo incidit,
vigilent Episcopi ne, lucri cupiditate, malam librarii mer-
centur mercem : certe in aliquorum indicibus modernistarum
libri abunde nee parva cum laude proponuntur. Hos, si
obedientiam detrectent, Episcopi, monitione praemissa, bi
bliopolarum. catholicorum titulo privare ne dubitent ; item
potioreque hire si episcopates audiant: qui vero pontificio
titulo ornantur, eos ad Sedem Apostolicam deferant. Uni-
versis demum in memoriam revocamus, quae memorata
apostolica Constitutio Officiorum habet, articulo XXVI :
O nines t qui facultatcm apostolicanl consecuti sunt legendi et
rctincndi libros prohibit os, nequeunt ideo legcre et refiner e
libros quoslibet aut cphenierides ab Ordinariis locorum pro-
script as; nisi cis in apostolico indulto expressa facta fuerit
potcsias legendi ac retinendi libros a quibuscumque damna-
tos.
IV. Nee tamen pravorum librorum satis est lectionem
impedire ac venditionem ; editionem etiam prohiberi oportet.
Ideo edendi facultatem Episcopi severitate summa imperti-
ant. Quoniam vero magno numero ea sunt ex Constitu-
tione Officiorum, quae Ordinarii permissionem ut edantur
postulent, nee ipse per se Episctopus praecognoscere uni-
versa potest ; in quibusdam dioecesibus ad cognitionem fa-
ciendam censores ex officio sufficienti numero destinantur.
Huiusmodi censorum institutum laudamus quam maxime:
illudque ut ad omnes dioeceses propagetur non hortamur
modo sed omnino praescribimus. In universis igitur curiis
episcopalibus censores ex officio adsint, qui edenda cognos-
cant : hi autem a gemino clero eligantur, aetate, eruditione,
prudentia commendati, quique in doctrinis probandis impro-
bandisque medio tutoque itinere eant. Ad illos scriptorum
cognitio deferatur, quae ex articulis XLI et XLII memo-
ratae Constitutionis venia ut edantur indigent. Censor sen-
tentiam scripto dabit. Ea si faverit, episcopus potestatem
edendi faciet per verbum Imprimatur, cui tamen praeponetur
formula Nihil obstat, adscripto censoris nomine. In Curia
Romana. non secus ac in ceteris omnibus, censores ex officio
instituantur. Eos, audito prius Cardinali in Urbe Pontificis
Vicario, turn vero annuente ac probante ipso Pontifice Maxi-
44 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE .MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
mo Magister sacri Palatii apostolici designabit. Huius erit
ad scripta singula cognoscenda censorem destinare. Editionis
facultas ab eodem Magistro dabitur nee non a Cardinal!
Vicario Pontificis vel Antistite eius vices gerente, praemissa
a censore, prout supra diximus, approbations formula, ad-
iectoque ipsius censoris nomine. Extraordinariis tantum
in adiunctis ac per quam raro, prudenti Episcopi arbitrio,
censoris mentio intermitti poterit. Auctoribus censoris
nomen patebit nunquam, antequam hie faventem sententiam
ediderit ; ne quid molestiae censori exhibeatur vel dum
scripta cognoscit, vel si editionem non probarit. Censores
e religiosorum familiis nunquam eligantur, nisi prius mo-
deratoris provinciae vel, si de Urbe agatur, moderatoris
generalis secreto sententia audiatur: is autem de eligendi
moribus, scientia et doctrinae integritate pro officii consci-
entia testabitur. Religiosorum moderatores de gravissimo
officio monemus numquam sinendi aliquid a suis subditis
typis edi, nisi prius ipsorum et Ordinarii facultas interces-
serit. Postremum edicimus et declaramus, censoris titu-
lum, quo quis ornatur, nihil valere prorsus nee unquam posse
afferri ad privatas eiusdem opiniones firmandas.
His universe dictis, nominatim servari diligentius praecipi-
mus, quae articulo XLII Constitutionis Officiorum in haec
verba edicuntur: Viri e clero saeculari prohibentur quonu-
nus, absque praevia Ordinariorum venia, diaria vel folia
periodica moderanda suscipiant. Qua si qui venia perniciose
utantur, ea, moniti primum, priventur. Ad sacerdotes
quod attinet, qui correspondentium vel collaboratorum no
mine vulgo veniunt, quoniam frequentius evenit eos in ephe-
meridibus vel commentariis scripta edere modernismi labe
infecta; videant Episcopi ne quid hi peccent, si peccarint
moneant atque a scribendo prohibeant. Idipsum religiosorum
moderatores ut praestent gravissime admonemus : qui si
negligentius agant, Ordinarii auctoritate Pontificis Maximi
provideant. Ephemerides et commentaria, quae a catholi-
cis scribuntur, quoad fieri" possit, censorem designatum ha-
beant. Huius omcium erit folia singula vel libellos, post-
quam sint edita, opportune perlegere: si quid dictum pericu-
lose fuerit, id quamprimum corrigendum iniungat. Eadem
porro Episcopis facultas esto, etsi censor forte faverit
V. Congressus publicosque coetus iam supra memoravi-
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 45
mus, utpote in quibus suas modernistae opiniones tueri
palam ac propagare student. Sacerdotum conventus Epi-
scopi in posterum haberi ne siverint, nisi rarissime. Quod
si siverint, ea tantum lege sinent, ut nulla fiat rerum tracta-
tio, quae ad Episcopos Sedemve Apostolicam pertinent; ut
nihil proponatur vel postuletur, quod sacrae potestatis oc-
cupationem inferat ; ut quidquid modernismum sapit, quid-
quid presbyterianismum vel laicismum, de eo penitus sermo
conticescat. Coetibus eiusmodi, quos singulatim, scripto,
aptaque tempestate permitti oportet, nullus ex alia dioecesi
sacerdos intersit, nisi litteris sui Episcopi commendatus.
Omnibus autem sacerdotibus animo ne excidant, quae Leo
XIII gravissime commendavit 1 : S ancta sit apud saeerdotes
Antistitum suornm anctoritas: pro certo habcant sacerdotale
miinus, nisi sub magisterio Episcoporuni exerccatur, neque
sanctum, ncc satis utilc, neque honest um futurum.
VI. Sed enim, Venerabiles Fratres, quid iuverit iussa a
Nobis praeceptionesque dari, si non haec rite firmiterque
serventur? Id ut feliciter pro votis cedat, visum est ad uni-
versas dioeceses proferre, quod Umbrorum Episcopi 2 , ante
annos plures, pro suis prudentissime decreverunt. Ad er-
rores, sic illi, iam diffuses expellendos atque ad impedien-
dum quomimis ulterius divulgcntur, aut adhuc extent im-
pietatis magistri per quos perniciosi perpetuentur effectus,^
qui ex ilia divulgatione manarunt, sacer Conventus, sancti
Caroli Borromaei vestigiis inhacrcns, institui in unaquaque
dioecesi dec emit probatorum utriusque cleri consilium, cuius
sit pervigilare an ct quibus artibus novi err ores serpant aut
disscmincntitr atque Episcopum de hisce docere, ut collatis
consiliis re-media capiat, quibus id mali ipso suo initio ex-
tingui possit, ne ad animarum pernicicm magis magisque
di^ i undatur , vel quod peius est in dies confirmetur et crescat.
- Tale igitur Consilium, quod a vigilantia dici placet, in
singulis dioecesibus institui quamprimum decernimus. Viri,
qui in illud adsciscantur, eo fere modo cooptabuntur, quo
supra de censoribus statuimus. Altero quoque mense stato-
que die cum Episcopo convenient: quae tractarint decreve-
rint, ea arcani lege custodiunto. Officii munere haec sibi
demandata habeant. Modernismi indicia ac vestigia tam in
*Litt. Enc. Nobilissima Gallorum, 40 febr. 1884.
Act. Consess. Epp. Umbriae, Novembri 1849, Tit. II, Art. 6.
46 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
libris quam in magisteriis pervestigent vigilanter; pro cleri
iuventaeque incolumitate, prudenter sed prompte et effica-
citer praescribant. Vocum novitatem caveant memine-
rintque Leonis XIII monita 1 : Probari non posse in catholi-
corum scriptis earn dicendi rationem quae, pravae novitati
studens, pietatem fidelium ridere videatur loquaturque no-
vum christianae vitae ordinem, novas Ecclesiae praecep-
tiones, nova moderni animi desideria, novam^ social em cleri
vocatwnem, novam chistianam humanitatern, aliaque id ge
nus multa. Haec in libris praelectionibusque ne patiantur.
Libros ne negligant, in quibus piae cuiusque loci traditiones
aut sacrae Reliquiae tractantur. Neu sinant eiusmodi quaes-
tiones agitari in ephemeridibus vel in commentariis fovendae
pietati destinatis, nee verbis ludibrium aut despectum sapien-
tibus, nee stabilibus sententiis, praesertim, ut fere accidit, si
quae affirmantur probabilitatis fines non excedunt vel praeiu-
dicatis nitantur opinionibus. De sacris Reliquiis haec te-
neantur. Si Episcopi, qui uni in hac re possunt, certo norint
Reliquiam esse subditiciam, fidelium cultu removeant. Si
Reliquiae cuiuspiam auctoritates, ob civiles forte perturba-
toines vel alio quovis casu, interierint ; ne publice ea pro-
ponatur nisi rite ab Episcopo recognita. Praescriptionis
argumentum vel fundatae praesumptionis tune tantum vale-
bit, si cultus antiquitate commendetur ; nimirum pro decreto
anno MDCCCXCVI a sacro Consilio indulgentiis sacrisque
Reliquiis cognoscen o dis edito, quo edicitur: Reliquias anti-
quas conservandas esse in ea veneratione in qua hactenus
fuerunt, nisi in casu particular* certa adsint argumenta eas
falsas vel supposititias esse. Quum autem de piis tradi-
tionibus iudicium f uerit, illud meminisse oportet : Ecclesiam
tanta in hac re uti prudentia, ut traditiones eiusmodi ne
scripto narrari permittat nisi cautione multa adhibita prae-
missaque declaratione ab Urbano VIII sancita ; quod etsi
rite fiat, non tamen facti veritatem adserit, sed, nisi humana
ad credendum argumenta desint, credi modo non prohibet.
Sic plane sacrum Consilium legitimis ritibus tuendis, abhinc
annis XXX, edicebat 1 : Eiusmodi apparitiones sen revela-
tiones neque approbatas neque damnatas ab Apostolica Sede
fiiisse, sed tantum permissas tamquam pie credendas nde
solmn humana, iuxta traditionem quam ferunt, idoneis etiam
Instruct. S. C. NN. EE. EE. 27 ian. 1902.
Deer. 2 maii 1877.
LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS 47
testimonies ac monument-is confirmatam. Hoc qui teneat,
metu omni vacabit. Nam Apparitionis cuiusvis religio, prout
factum ipsum spectat et relative, dicitur, conditionem semper
habet implicitam de veritate facti : prout vero absolute, est,
semper in veritate nititur, fertur enim in personas ipsas
Sanctorum qui honorantur. Similiter de Reliquiis affirman-
clum. Illud demum Consilio vigilantiae demandamus, ut
ad socialia instituta itemque ad scripta quaevis de re sociali
assidue ac diligenter adiiciant oculos, ne quid in illis mo-
dernismi lateat, sed Romanorum Pontificum praeceptionibus
respondeant.
VII. Haec quae praecepimus ne forte oblivioni dentur,
volumus et mandamus ut singularum dioecesum Episcopi,
anno exacto ab editione praesentium litterarum, postea vero
tertio quoque anno, diligenti ac iurata enarratione referant
ad Sedem Apostolicam de his quae hac Nostra Epistola
decernuntur, itemque de doctrinis quae in clero vigent, prae-
sertim autem in Seminariis ceterisque catholicis Institutis,
iis non exceptis quae Ordinarii auctoritati non subsunt.
Idipsum Moderatoribus generalibus ordinum religiosorum
pro suis alumnis iniungimus.
Haec vobis, Venerabiles Fratres, scribenda duximus ad
salutem omni credenti. Adversarii vero Ecclesiae his certe
abutentur ut veterem calumniam refricent, qua sapientiae
atque humanitatis progressioni infesti traducimur. His ac-
cusationibus, quas christianae religionis historia perpetuis
argumentis refellit, ut novi aliquid opponamus, mens est
peculiare Institutum omni ope provehere, in quo, iuvantibus
quotquot sunt inter catholicos sapientiae fama insignes,
quidquid est scientiarum, quidquid omne genus eruditionis,
catholica veritate duce et magistra, promoveatur. Faxit Deus
ut proposita feliciter impleamus, suppetitias ferentibus qui-
cumque Ecclesiam Christi sincero amore amplectuntur. Sed
de his alias. Interea vobis, Venerabiles Fratres, de quo
rum opera et studio vehementer confidimus, superni luminis
copiam toto animo exoramus ut, in tanto animorum discri-
mine ex gliscentibus undequaque erroribus, quae vobis
agenda sint videatis, et ad implenda quae videritis omni vi
ac fortitudine incumbatis. Adsit vobis virtute sua lesus
Christus, auctor et consummator fidei nostrae; adsit prece
atque auxilio Virgo immaculata, cunctarum haeresum in-
48 LITTERAE ENCYCLICAE DE MODERNISTARVM DOCTRINIS
teremptrix. Nos vero, pignus caritatis Nostrae divinique
in adversis solatii, Apostolicam Benedictionem vobis, cleris
populisque vestris amantissime impertimus.
Datum Romae, apud Sanctum Petrum, die VIII Septem-
bris MCMVII, Pontificatus Nostri Anno quinto.
PIVS PP. X.
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 49
ENGLISH VERSION OF
THE ENCYCLICAL
OF
Our Holy Father Pius X
ON THE
ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS.
To the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and
other local Ordinaries in peace and communion with the
Apostolic See.
The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord s
flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ,,
namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit
of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane
novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely
so called. There has never been a time when this watch
fulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the
Catholic body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of
the human race, there have never been lacking "men
speaking perverse things" (Acts xx. 30), "vain talkers
and seducers "(Tit. i. 10), "erring and driving into error"
(2 Tim. iii. 13). Still it must be confessed that the num
ber of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last
days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, en
tirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy
of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly
Christ s kingdom itself. Wherefore We may no longer be
silent, less We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty,
and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels,
We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to
forgetfulness of Our office.
GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION.
That we make no delay in this matter is rendered neces
sary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are
to be sought not only among the Church s open enemies ;
they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in
her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous,
the less conspicuously they appear. We allude. Venerable
Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay,
5O ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priest
hood 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 account
ing 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 fibers. And having
struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to dissemi
nate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part
of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none
that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more
skillful, none more astute than they, in the employment of
a thousand noxious arts ; for they double the parts of ra
tionalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily
lead the unwary into error ; and since audacity is their chief
characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from
which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward
with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the
fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that
they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and
ardent application to every branch of learning, and that
they possess, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest moral
ity. Finally, and this almost destroys all hope of cure, their
very doctrines have given such .a bent to their minds, that
they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and re-
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 51
lying upon a false conscience they attempt to ascribe to a
love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and
obstinacy.
( )nce indeed We had hopes of recalling them to a better
sense, and to this end We first of all showed them kind
ness as Our children, then We treated them with severity,
and at last We have had recourse, though with great re
luctance, to public reproof. But you know, Venerable
Brethren, how fruitless has been Our action. They bowed
their head for a moment, but it was soon uplifted more
arrogantly than ever. If it were a matter which concerned
them alone, We might perhaps have overlooked it; but the
security of the Catholic name is at stake. Wherefore, as
to maintain it longer would be a crime, we must now break
silence, in order to expose before the whole Church in
their true colors those men who have assumed this bad
disguise.
DIVISION OF THE ENCYCLICAL.
But since the Modernists (as they are commonly and
rightly called) employ a very subtle artifice, namely, to pre
sent their doctrines without order and systematic arrange
ment into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from an
other, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while
they are in reality firm and steadfast, it will be of advantage,
Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here
into one group, and to point out the connection between
them, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources
of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the
evil.
PART I : ANALYSIS OF MODERNIST TEACHING.
To proceed in an orderly manner in this recondite sub
ject, it must first of all be noted that every Modernist sus
tains and comprises within himself many personalities ; he
is a philosopher, a believer, a theologian, an historian, a
critic, an apologist, a reformer. These roles must be clearly
distinguished from one another by all who would accurately
know their system and thoroughly comprehend the prin
ciples and the consequences of their doctrines.
AGNOSTICISM ITS PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION.
We begin, then, with the philosopher. Modernists place
the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine
52 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
which is usually called Agnosticism. According to this
teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field
of phenomena, that is to say, to things that are perceptible
to the senses, and in the manner in which they are per
ceptible ; it has no right and no power to transgress these
limits. Hence it is incapable of lifting itself up to God,
and of recognizing His existence, even by means of visible
things. From this it is inferred that God can never be the
direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He
must not be considered as an historical subject. Given these
premises, all will readily perceive what becomes of Natural
Theology, of the motives of credibility, of external revela
tion. The Modernists simply make away with them alto
gether; they include them in Intellectualism, which they
call a ridiculous and long ago defunct system. Nor does
the fact that the Church has formally condemned these
portentous errors exercise the slightest restraint upon them.
Yet the Vatican Council has defined, "If anyone says that
the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known
with certainty by the natural light of human reason by
means of the things that are made, let him be anathema"
(De ReveL, can. i) ; and also: "If anyone says that it is
not possible or not expedient that man be taught, through
the medium of divine revelation, -about God and the wor
ship to be paid Him, let him be anathema" (Ibid., can. 2) ;
and finally, "If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be
made credible by external signs, and that therefore men
^hould be drawn to the faith only by their personal internal
experience or by private inspiration, let him be anathema"
(De Fide, can. 3). But how the Modernists make the
transition from Agnosticism, which is a state of pure
nescience, to scientific and historic Atheism, which is a
doctrine of positive denial ; and consequently, by what
legitimate process of reasoning, starting from ignorance
as to whether God has in fact intervened in the history of
the human race or not, they proceed, in their explanation
of this history, to ignore God altogether, as if He really
had not intervened, let him answer who can. Yet it is a
fixed and established principle among them that both
science and history must be atheistic; and within their
boundaries there is room for nothing but phenomena ; God
and all that is divine are utterly excluded. We shall soon
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 53
see clearly what, according to this most absurd teaching,
must be held touching the most sacred person of Christ,
what concerning the mysteries of His life and death, and
of His Resurrection and Ascension into heaven.
VITAL IMMANENCE.
However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of
the system of the Modernists ; the positive side of it consists
in what they call vital immanence. This is how they ad
vance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural
or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some
explanation. But when Natural theology has been de
stroyed, the road to revelation closed through the rejection
of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation
absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be
sought in vain outside man himself. It must, therefore, be
looked for in man ; and since religion is a form of life, the
explanation must certainly be found in the life of man.
Hence the principle of religious immanence is formulated.
Moreover, the first actuation, so to say, of every vital
phenomenon, and religion, as has been said, belongs to this
category, is due to a certain necessity or impulsion; but it
has its origin, speaking more particularly of life, in a
movement of the heart, which movement is called a senti
ment. Therefore, since God is the object of religion, we
must conclude that faith, which is the basis and the founda
tion of all religion, consists in a sentiment which originates
from a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which
is experienced only in special and favorable circumstances,
cannot, of itself, appertain to the domain of consciousness ;
it is at first latent within the consciousness, or, to borrow a
term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness,
where also its roots lie hidden and undetected.
Should anyone ask how it is that this need of the divine
which man experiences within himself grows up into a
religion, the Modernists reply thus: Science and history,
they say, are confined within two limits, the one external,
namely, the visible world, the other internal, which is con
sciousness. When one or other of these boundaries has
been reached, there can be no further progress, for beyond
is the unknowable. In presence of this unknowable,
whether it is outside man and beyond the visible world of
nature, or lies hidden within in the subconsciousness, the
54 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
need of the divine, according to the principles of Fideism,
excites in a soul with a propensity towards religion a cer
tain special sentiment, without any previous advertence of
the mind; and this sentiment possesses, implied within
itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the
reality of the divine, and in a way unites man with God.
It is this sentiment to which Modernists give the name of
faith, and this it is which they consider the beginning of
religion.
But we have not yet come to the end of their philosophy,
or, to speak more accurately, their folly. For Modernism
finds in this sentiment not faith only, but with and in faith,
as they understand it, revelation, they say abides. For
what more can one require for revelation? Is not that re
ligious sentiment which is perceptible in the consciousness
revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay,
is not God Himself, as He manifests Himself to the soul,
indistinctly it is true, in this same religious sense, revela
tion? And they add: Since God is both the object and
the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of
God and from God, that is, God is both the revealer and
the revealed.
Hence, Venerable Brethren, springs that ridiculous
proposition of the Modernists, that every religion, accord
ing to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must
be considered as both natural and supernatural. Hence it
is that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous.
Hence the law, according to which religious consciousness
is given as the universal rule, to be put on an equal footing
with revelation, and to which all must submit, even the
supreme authority of the Church, whether in its teaching
capacity, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred
liturgy or discipline.
DEFORMATION OF RELIGIOUS HISTORY THE CONSEQUENCE.
However, in all this process, from which, according to
the Modernists, faith and revelation spring, one point is to
be particularly noted, for it is of capital importance on
account of the historico-critical corollaries which are de
duced from it. For the Unknowable they talk of does not
present itself to faith as something solitary and isolated ;
but rather in close conjunction with some phenomenon,
which, though it belongs to the realm of science and his-
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 55
tory, yet to some extent oversteps their bounds. Such a
phenomenon may be a fact of nature containing within
itself something mysterious ; or it may be a man, whose
character, actions and words cannot, apparently, be recon
ciled with the ordinary laws of history. Then faith, at
tracted by the Unknowable which is united with the phe
nomenon, possesses itself of the whole phenomenon, and,
as it were, permeates it with its own life. From this two
things follows. The first is a sort of transfiguration of the
phenomenon, by its elevation above its own true condi
tions, by which it becomes more adapted to that form
of the divine which faith will infuse into it. The second
is a kind of disfigurement, which springs from the fact that
faith, which has made the phenomenon independent of the
circumstances of place and time, attributes to it qualities
which it has not; and this is true particularly of the phe
nomena of the past, and the older they are, the truer it is.
From these two principles the Modernists deduce two
laws, which, when united with a third which they have
already got from agnosticism, constitute the foundation of
historical criticism. We will take an illustration from the
person of Christ. In the person of Christ, they say, science
and history encounter nothing that is not human. There
fore, in virtue of the first canon deduced from agnosticism,
whatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine,
must be rejected. Then, according to the second canon,
the historical person of Christ was transfigured by faith ;
therefore everything that raises it above historical condi
tions must be removed. Lastly, the third canon, which
lays down that the person of Christ has been disfigured by
faith, requires that everything should be excluded, deeds
and words and all else that is not in keeping with His
character, circumstances and education, and with the place
and time in which He lived. A strange style of reasoning,
truly; but it is Modernist criticism.
Therefore the religious sentiment, which through the
agency of vital immanence emerges from the lurking-places
of the subconsciousness, is the germ of all religion, and
the explanation of everything that has been or ever will be
in any religion. This sentiment, which was at first only
rudimentary and almost formless, gradually matured, under
the influence of that mysterious principle from which it
- 56 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
originated, with the progress of human life, of which, as
has been said, it is a form. This, then, is the origin of all
religion, even supernatural religion; it is only a develop
ment of this religious sentiment. Nor is the Catholic re
ligion an exception ; it is quite on a level with the rest ; for
t was engendered, by the process of vital immanence, in
the consciousness of Christ, who was a man of the choicest
nature, whose like has never been, nor will be. Those who
hear these audacious, these sacrilegious assertions, are
simply shocked. And yet, Venerable Brethren, these are
not merely the foolish babblings of infidels. There are
many Catholics, yea, and priests too, who say these things
openly; and they boast that they are going to reform the
Church by these ravings. There is no question now of the
old error, by which a sort of right to the supernatural
order was claimed for the human nature. We have gone
far beyond that: we have reached the point when it is af
firmed that our most holy religion, in the man Christ as in
us, emanated from nature spontaneously and entirely. Than
this there is surely nothing more destructive of the whole
supernatural order. Wherefore the Vatican Council most
justly decreed : "If anyone says that man cannot be raised
by God to a knowledge and perfection which surpasses
nature, but that he can and should, by his own efforts and
by a constant development, attain finally to the possession
of all truth and good, let him be anathema" (De Revel
can. 3).
THE ORIGIN OF DOGMAS.
So far, Venerable Brethren, there has been no mention
of the intellect. Still it also, according to the teaching of
the^ Modernists, has its part in the act of faith. And it is
of importance to see how. In that sentiment of which We
have frequently spoken, since sentiment is not knowledge,
God indeed presents Himself to man, but in a manner so
confused and indistinct that He can hardly be perceived
by the believer. It is therefore necessary that a ray of light
should be cast upon this sentiment, so that God may be
clearly distinguished and set apart from it. This is the
task of the intellect, whose office it is to reflect and to
analyze, and by means of which man first transforms into
mental pictures the vital phenomena which arise within
him, and then expresses them in words. Hence the com-
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 57
mon saying of Modernists: that the religious man must
think his faith. The intellect, then, encountering this senti
ment directs itself upon it, and produces in it a work
resembling that of a painter who restores and gives new
life to a picture that has perished with age. The simile is
that of one of the leaders of Modernism. The operation
of the intellect in this work is a double one: first, by a nat
ural and spontaneous act it expresses its concept in a simple,
ordinary statement; then, on reflection and deeper con
sideration, or, as they say, by elaborating its thought, it
expresses the idea in secondary propositions, which are
derived from the first, but are more defined and distinct.
These secondary propositions, if they finally receive the
approval of the supreme magisterium of the Church, con
stitute dogma.
Thus, We have reached one of the principal points in
the Modernists system, namely, the origin and the nature
of dogma. For they place the origin of dogma in ^ those
primitive and simple formulas, which, under a certain as
pect, are necessary to faith ; for revelation, to be truly such,
requires the clear manifestation of God in the conscious
ness. But dogma itself, they apparently hold, is contained
in the secondary formulas.
To ascertain the nature of dogma, we must first find the
relation which exists between the religious formulas and
the religious sentiment. This will be readily perceived by
him who realizes that these formulas have no other purpose
than to furnish the believer with a means of giving an
account of his faith to himself. These formulas therefore
stand midway between the believer and his faith; in their
relation to the faith, they are the inadequate expression
of its object and are usually called symbols; in their re
lation to the believer, they are mere instruments.
ITS EVOLUTION.
Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they ex
press absolute truth; for, in so far as they are symbols,
they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the
religious sentiment in its relation to man; and as instru
ments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore
in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the relig
ious sentiment. But the object of the religious sentiment,
since it embraces the absolute, possesses an infinite variety
5 8 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNIS.M
of aspects ,of which now one, now another, may present
itself. In like manner, he who believes may pass through
different phases. Consequently, the formulas too, which
we call dogmas, must be subject to these vicissitudes, and
are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to
the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection
of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion Dog
ma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed
This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly
flows from their principles. For amongst the chief points
of their teaching is this which they deduce from the prin
ciple of vital immanence; that religious formulas, to be
really religious and not merely intellectual speculations
ought to be living and to live the life of the religious senti
ment. This is not to be understood in the sense that these
iormulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be made
tor the religious sentiment ; it has no more to do with their
origin than with their number or quality; what is necessary
is that the religious sentiment, some modification being; in
troduced when needful, should vitally assimilate them In
other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be ac
cepted and sanctioned by the heart ; and similarly the subse
quent work from which spring the secondary formulas must
proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes
that these formulas, to be living, should be, and should re
main, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Where
fore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist
they lose their first meaning and accordingly must be
changed. And since the character and lot of dogmatic for
mulas is so precarious, there is no room for surprise that
Modernists regard them so lightly and in such open disre
spect. And so they audaciously charge the Church both with
taking the wrong road from inability to distinguish the
religious and moral, sense of formulas from their surface
meaning, and with clinging tenaciously and vainly to mean
ingless formulas whilst religion is allowed to go to ruin.
Blind that they are, and leaders of the blind, inflated with
a boastful science, since they have reached that pitch of
folly where they pervert the eternal concept of truth and
the true nature of the religious sentiment; with that new
system of theirs they are seen to be under the sway of a
blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 59
all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising
the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace o^her vain,
futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on
which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can
rest and maintain truth itself.
THE MODERNIST AS BELIEVER: INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE AND
RELIGIOUS CERTITUDE.
Thus far, Venerable Brethren, of the Modernist consid
ered as Philosopher. Now if we proceed to consider him as
Reliever, seeking to know how the Believer, according to
Modernism, is differentiated from the Philosopher, it must
be observed that although the Philosopher recognizes as
the object of faith the divine reality, still this reality is not
to be found but in the heart of the Believer, as being an
object of sentiment and affirmation; and therefore confined
within the sphere of phenomena ; but as to whether it exists
outside that sentiment and affirmation is a matter which in
no way concerns the Philosopher. For the Modernist
Believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain
fact that the divine reality does really exist in itself and
quite independently of the person who believes jn it. If
you ask on what foundation this assertion of the Believer
rests, they answer: In the experience of the individual.
On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists
only to fall into the opinion of the Protestants and pseudo-
Mystics. This is their manner of putting the question : In
the religious sentiment one must recognize a kind of intui
tion of the heart which puts man in immediate contact
with the very reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion
of God s existence and His action both within and without
man as to excel greatly any scientific conviction. They
assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and
one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If
this experience is denied by some, like the rationalists, it
arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put
themselves in the moral state which is necessary to produce
it. It is this experience which, when a person acquires it,
makes him properly and truly a believer.
How far off we are here from Catholic teaching we have
already seen in the decree of the Vatican Council. We
shall see later how, with such theories, added to the other
errors already mentioned, the way is opened wide for
60 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this
doctrine of experience united with the other doctrine of
symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must
be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences
from being met with in every religion? In fact that they
are to be found is asserted by not a few. And with what
right will Modernists deny the truth of an experience
affirmed by a follower of Islam ? With what right can they
claim true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed Mod
ernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly,
others in the most open manner, that all religions are true.
That they cannot feel otherwise is clear. For on what
ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predi
cated of any religion whatsoever? It must be certainly on
one of these two: either on account of the falsity of the
religious sentiment or on account of the falsity of the
formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious senti
ment, although it may be more perfect or less perfect, is
always one and the same ; and the intellectual formula, in
order to be true, has but to respond to the religious senti
ment and to the Believer, whatever be the intellectual capac
ity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions,
the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic
has more truth because it is more living and that it de
serves with more reason the name of Christian because it
corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity.
That these consequences flow from the premises will not
seem unnatural to anybody. But what is amazing is that
there are Catholics and priests who, we would fain believe,
abhor such enormities yet act as if they fully approved of
them. For they heap such praise and bestow such public
honor on the teachers of these errors as to give rise to the
belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the
persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit,
but rather for the errors which these persons openly pro
fess and which they do all in their power to propagate.
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE AND TRADITION.
But this doctrine of experience is also under another
aspect entirely contrary to Catholic truth. It is extended
and applied to tradition, as hitherto understood by the
Church, and destroys it. By the Modernists tradition is
understood as a communication to others, through preach-
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 6l
ing by means of the intellectual formula, of an original
experience. To this formula, in addition to its representa
tive value, they attribute a species of suggestive efficacy
which acts both in the person who believes to stimulate
the religious sentiment should it happen to have grown
sluggish and to renew the experience once acquired, and
in those who do not yet believe to awake for the first time
the religious sentiment in them and to produce the experi
ence. In this way is religious experience propagated
among the peoples ; and not merely among contempo
raries by preaching, but among future generations both by
books and by oral transmission from one to another.
Sometimes this communication of religious experience
takes root and thrives, at other times it withers at once and
dies. For the Modernists to live is a proof of truth, since
for them life and truth are one and the same thing.
Hence again it is given to us to infer that all existing ^re-
ligions are equally true, for otherwise they would not live.
FAITH AND SCIENCE.
Having reached this point, Venerable Brethren, we have
sufficient material in hand to enable us- to see the^ relations
which Modernists establish between faith and science, in
cluding history also under the name of science. And in
the first place it is to be held that the object of the one
is quite extraneous to and separate from the object of the
other. For faith occupies itself solely with something
which science declares to be unknowable for it. Hence
each has a separate field assigned to it; science is^ entirely
concerned with the reality of phenomena, into which faith
does not enter at all ; faith on the contrary concerns itself
with the divine reality which is entirely unknown to
science. Thus the conclusion is reached that there can
never be any dissension between faith and science, for if
each keeps on its own ground they can never meet and
therefore never be in contradiction. And if it be objected
that in the visible world there are some things which ap
pertain to faith, such as the human life of Christ, the Mod
ernists reply by denying this. For though such things
come within the category of phenomena, still in as far as
they are lived by faith and in the way already described
have been by faith transfigured and disfigured, they have
been removed from the world of sense and translated to be-
62 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
come material for the divine. Hence should it be further
asked whether Christ has wrought real miracles, and made
real prophecies, whether He rose truly from the dead and
ascended into heaven, the answer of agnostic science will
be in the negative and the answer of faith in the affirma
tive yet there will not be, on that account, any conflict
between them. For it will be denied by the philosopher as
philisopher, speaking to philosophers and considering
Christ only in His historical reality; and it will be
affirmed by the speaker, speaking to believers and consider
ing the life of Christ as lived again by the faith and in the
faith.
FAITH SUBJECT TO SCIENCE.
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 phe
nomena 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 sci
ence 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 concrning
the universe.
Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independ-
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 63
ent 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 re
ligion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to
serve, not to prescribe what is to be believed but to em
brace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not
to scrutinize the depths of the mysteries of God but to
venerate them devoutly and humbly.
The Modernists completely invert the parts, and to them
may be applied the words of another Predecessor of Ours,
Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time:
Some among you, inflated like bladders with the spirit ^of
vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries
fixed by the Fathers, twisting the sense of the heavenly
pages ... to the philosophical teaching of the ra-
tionals, 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.
THE METHODS OF .MODERNISTS.
This becomes still clearer to anybody who studies the
conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with
their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem
not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine, now an
other, 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 catechise the people, they cite
them respectfully. In the same way they draw their dis
tinctions betwee n 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 hor-
64 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
ror at treading in the footsteps of Luther, they are
wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines,
for 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 criticise the
Church because of her sheer obstinacy in refusing to sub
mit 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.
THE MODERNIST AS THEOLOGIAN I HIS PRINCIPLES, IM
MANENCE AND SYMBOLISM.
And thus, Venerable Brethren, the road is open for us
to study the Modernists in the theological arena a diffi
cult task, yet one that may be disposed of briefly. The end
to be attained is the conciliation of faith w ith 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 be
liever: 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 pro
ceeds 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 sym
bols 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
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 65
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 sub
ject vary. Some understand it in the sense that God work
ing 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, ex
plain it in a way which savors of pantheism and this, in
truth, is the sense which tallies best with the rest of their
doctrines.
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 Sacra
ments. The Church and the Sacraments, they say, are not
to be regarded as having been instituted by Christ Him
self. 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 Chris
tian consciences were, they affirm, in a manner virtually in
cluded in the conscience of Christ as the plant is included
in the seed. But as the shoots live the life of the seed, so,
66 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
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
course 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
conclusion of science must always, and in all things, be re
spected. The application of these theories to the other
points We shall proceed to expound, anybody may easily
make for himself.
DOGMA AND THE SACRAMENTS.
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 indi
cated 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 sub
sequently grouped into bodies of doctrine, or into doctrinal
constructions as they prefer to call them, and further sanc
tioned 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. Con
cerning 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
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
errors. For them the Sacraments are the resultant of a
double need for, as we have seen, everything in their sys
tem is explained by inner impulses or necessities.
the present case, the first need is that of giving some sen
sible manifestation to religion; the second is that of
propagating it, which could not be done without some sen
sible 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 senti
mentthat and nothing more. The Modernists would be
speaking more clearly were they to affirm that the Sacra
ments 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.
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
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 any
body, 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 in
genuity 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 in
cluded 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 im
manence and permanence. Do we inquire concerning in
spiration? Inspiration, they reply, is distinguished only by
its vehemence from that impulse which stimulates the Be
liever to reveal the faith that is in him by words or writing.
68 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
It is something like what happens in poetical inspiration, of
which it has been said : There is a 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 modernists who somewhat re
strict inspirations, 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.
THE CHURCH.
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 supposi
tion 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 col
lective conscience, that is to say of the society of individual
consciences which by virtue of the principle of vital per
manence, all depend on one first believer, who for Catho
lics is Christ. Now every society needs a directing author
ity to guide its members towards the common end to con
serve prudently the elements of cohesion which in a re
ligious society are doctrine and worship. 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 this con
ception has now grown obsolete. For in the same way as
the Church is a vital emanation of the collectivity of con-
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 69
sciences, 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 con
science 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.
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE.
But it is not with its own members alone that the Church
must come to an amicable arrangement besides its rela
tions 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 the modernists
have already described it. The rules to be applied in this mat
ter 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 strang
ers 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 insti
tuted immediately by God as the author of the supernatural
order. But this doctrine is to-day repudiated alike by
7O ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
philosophers and historians. 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.
THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH.
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 ele
ments 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 are logically committed to it. For given
the principle that in temporal matters the State pos
sesses 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 Sacra
ments, 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 com
pletely 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, indi
vidual 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 ad
vanced and far more pernicious are their teachings on doc
trinal 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
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 7 1
of its members be one, and one also the formula which they
adopt. But this 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
the common mind which draws up the formula and
the authority which imposes it, arises, according to
the Modernists, the notion of the ecclesiastical magis-
terium. And as this magisterium springs, in its last analy
sis, from the individual consciences and possesses its man
date for their benefit, it follows that the ecclesias
tical 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 mean 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 mind it
is not exclusively for the mind, and that the honor paid
to authority is reflected back on Jesus Christ who insti
tuted it.
THE EVOLUTION OF DOCTRINE.
To finish with this whole question of faith and its shoots,
it remains to be seen, Venerable Brethren, what the Mod
ernists 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 in fact change.
72 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
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 consciousness. This progress was of two kinds : nega
tive, by the elimination of all foreign elements, such, for
example, as the sentiment of family or nationality ; and
positive by that intellectual and moral refining of man, by
means of which the idea of the Divine was enlarged and en
lightened 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 some
thing 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
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 73
to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with ex
isting forms of society. Such is religious evolution in de
tail. 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.
Still continuing the consideration of the evolution of doc
trine, 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, evolu
tion is described as resulting from the conflict of two forces,
one of them tending towards progress, the other towards
conservatism. The conserving force in the Church is tra
dition, 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 pro
gressive 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 ad
vances 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 con
sent to a compromise, and, the pact being made, authority
sees to its maintenance.
With all this in mind, one understands how it is that
the Modernists express astonishment when they are repri
manded or punished. What is imputed to them as a fault
they -regard as a sacred duty. The needs of consciences no
one knows better than they, since they are in closer touch
with them than even the ecclesiastical authority.
74 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
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 im
pede the progress of souls, but the hour will most surely
come when there will be no further chance for tergiversa
tion, 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, mask
ing an incredible audacity under a mock semblance of hu
mility. While they make a show of bowing their heads,
their hands and minds are more intent than ever on carry
ing out their purposes. And this policy they follow will
ingly 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.
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 (i).
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 enunciat
ed in these terms: Divine revelation is imperfect, and
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 75
therefore subject to continual and indefinite prog
ress corresponding with the progress of human rea
son (2) and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican
Council- The doctrine of the faith which God ha* re
pealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be
perfected bv them as if it were a philosophical system, but
as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be
faithfullv warded 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 pro
found comprehension of the truth. Nor is the develop
ment of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, imped
bv this pronouncement on the contrary it is aided and pro
moted. For the same Council continues : Let intelligence
and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress
abundantlv 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.
THE MODERNIST AS HISTORIAN AND CRITIC.
After having studied the Modernist as philosopher, be-
licver, and theologian, it now remains for us to consider
him as historian, critic, apologist, reformer.
Some Modernists, devoted to historical studies, seem
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 preju
diced 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 any
body 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 transfigura
tion of things by faith, and the principle which We have
called of disfiguration. j, et lls see what consequences flow
from each of them. Agnosticism tells us that history, like
/t ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
every other science, deals entirely with phenomena, and the
consequences 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 Mod
ernists, between the Christ of history and the Christ of
faith, between the Church of history and the Church of
faith, between the Sacraments of history and the Sacra
ments 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 be
comes 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 his
torian 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 exist
ence. 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 relegation
to faith everything which, in their judgment, is not in har
mony with what they call the logic of facts and in char
acter 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 multi
tudes 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 circum
stances under which the facts took placein short, from
criteria^ which, when one considers them well, are purely
subjective. Their method is to put themselves into the posf-
tion 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
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 77
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.
CRITICISM AND ITS PRINCIPLES.
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 his
tory ; the rest is attributed to the history of the faith or, as
it is styled, to internal history. For the Modernists dis
tinguish 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 speculation from beginning to end.
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 principal 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 antedate 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 docu
ments dealing with the history of faith and distributes them,
period by period, so that they correspond exactly with the
list of needs, always guided by the principle that the nar-
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
ration 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 has manifested itself in the Church. Fur
ther, a distinction must be made between the beginning of a
fact and its development, for what is born on one day re
quires time for growth. Hence the critic must once more go
over his documents, ranged as they are through the differ
ent 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 develop
ment, and these he must again arange according to their
periods.
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 his
torian to scrutinize his documnets 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 ful
filled 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 docu
ments 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? As
suredly, neither of these but the philosopher. From be
ginning 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 be
came vcnn in their thoughts . . . professing them
selves 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.
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 79
HOW THE BIBLE IS DEALT WITH.
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 corre
sponding with the 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 cer
tain type or 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 vouch
safed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately, these great
doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are pos
sessed by the Modernists for their guide and rule a phil
osophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion
which consists of themselves.
We believe, then, that We have set forth with sufficient
80 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
clearness the historical method of the Modernists. The
philosopher leads the way, the historian follows, and then
in due order come internal and textual criticism. And since
it is characteristic of the first cause to communicate its vir
tue to secondary causes, it is quite clear that the criticism
We are concerned with is an agnostic, immanentist, and
evolutionist criticism. Hence anybody who embraces it
and employs it, makes profession thereby of the errors con
tained in it, and places himself in opposition to Catholic
faith. This being so, one cannot but be greatly surprised by
the consideration which is attached to it by certain Catho
lics. Two causes may be assigned for this : first, the close
alliance, independent of all differences of nationality or re
ligion, which the historians and critics of this school have
formed among themselves ; second, the boundless effrontery
of these men. Let one of them but open his mouth and the
others applaud him in chorus, proclaiming that science has
made another step forward; let an outsider but hint at a
desire to inspect the new discovery with his own eyes, and
they are on him in a body; deny it and you are an
ignoramus ; embrace it and defend it and there is no
praise too warm for you. In this way they win over many
who, did they but realize what they are doing, would
shrink back with horror. The impudence and the domineer
ing of some, and the thoughtlessness and imprudence of
others, have combined to generate a pestilence in the air
which penetrates everywhere and spreads the contagion.
But let us pass to the apologist.
THE MODERNIST AS APOLOGIST.
The Modernist apologist depends in two ways on the phil
osopher. First, indirectly, inasmuch as his theme is his
tory history dictated, as we have seen, by the philoso
pher; and, second, directly, inasmuch as he takes both his
laws and his principles from the philosopher. Hence that
common precept of the Modernist school that the new
apologetics must be fed from psychological and historical
sources. The Modernist apologists, then, enter the arena by
proclaiming to the rationalists that though they are defend
ing religion, they have no intention of employing the data
of the sacred books or the histories in current use in the
Church, and composed according to old methods, but real
history written on modern principles and according to rig-
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 8l
orously modern methods. In all this they are not using an
argumentum ad hominem, but are stating the simple fact
that they hold that the truth is to be found only in this kind
of history. They feel that it is not necessary for them to
dwell on their own sincerity in their writings they are
already known to and praised by the rationalists as fighting
under the same banner, and they not only plume themselves
on these encomiums, which are a kind of salary to them but
would only provoke nausea in a real Catholic, but use them
as an offset to the reprimands of the Church.
But let us see how the Modernist conducts his apolo
getics. The aim he sets before himself is to make the non-
believer attain that experience of the Catholic religion
which, according to the system, is the basis of faith. There
are two ways open to him, the objective and the subjective.
The first of them proceeds from agnosticism. It tends to
show that religion, and especially the Catholic religion, is
endowed with such vitality as to compel every psychologist
and historian of good faith to recognize that its history
hides some unknown element. To this end it is necessary
to prove that this religion, as it exists to-day, is that which
was founded by Jesus Christ; that is to say, that it is the
product of the progressive development of the germ which
He brought into the world. Hence it is imperative first of
all to establish what this germ was and this the Modernist
claims to be able to do by the following formula: Christ
announced the coming of the kingdom of God, which was to
be realized within a brief lapse of time and of which He
was to become the Messiah, the divinely given agent and
ordainer. Then it must be shown how this germ, always
immanent and permanent in the bosom of the Church, has
gone on slowly developing in the course of history, adapt
ing itself successively to the different mediums through
which it has passed, borrowing from them by vital assimila
tion all the dogmatic, cultural, ecclesiastical forms that
served its purpose ; whilst, on the other hand, it surmounted
all obstacles, vanquished all enemies, and survived all as
saults and all combats. Anybody who well and duly con
siders this mass of obstacles, adversaries, attacks, combats,
and the vitality and fecundity which the Church has shown
throughout them all, must admit that if the laws of evolu
tion are visible in her life they fail to explain the whole of
82 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
her history the unknown rises forth from it and presents
itself before us. Thus do they argue, never suspecting that
their determination of the primitive germ in an a priori of
agnostic and evolutionist philosophy, and that the formula
of it has been gratuitously invented for the sake of buttress
ing their position.
But while they endeavor by this line of reasoning to
secure access for the Catholic religion into souls, these new
apologists are quite ready to admit that there are many
distasteful things in it. Nay, they admit openly, and with
ill-concealed satisfaction, that they have found that even its
dogma is not exempt from errors and contradictions. They
add also that this is not only excusable but curiously
enough even right and proper. In the Sacred Books
there are many passages referring to science or history
where manifest errors are to be found. But the subject of
these books is not science or history but religion and morals.
In them history and science serve only as a species of cov
ering to enable the religious and moral experiences wrapped
up in them to penetrate more readily among the masses.
The masses understood science and history as they are ex
pressed in these books, and it is clear that had science and
history been expressed in a more perfect form this would
have proved rather a hindrance than a help. Then, again,
the Sacred Books being essentially religious, are" conse
quently necessarily living. Now life has its own truth and
its own logic quite different from rational truth and ra-
tional logic, belonging as they do to a different order, viz.,
truth of adaptation and of proportion both with the me
dium in which it exists and with the end towards which it
tends. Finally the Modernists, losing all sense of control,
go so far as to proclaim as true and legitimate everything
that is explained by life.
We, Venerable Brethren, for whom there is but one and
only ,truth, and who hold that the Sacred Books, written
under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, have God for their
author (Cond. Vat,, De Revel., c. 2). declare that this is
equivalent to attributing to God Himself the lie of utility or
officious lie, and We say with St. Augustine : In an author
ity so high, admit but one officious lie, and there will not
remain a single passage of those apparently difficult to prac
tice or to believe, which on the same most pernicious rule
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 83
may not be explained as a lie uttered by the author zvilfully
and to serve a purpose. (Epist. 28.) And thus it will
come about, the holy Doctor continues, that everybody will
believe and refuse to believe what he likes or dislikes. But
the Modernists pursue their way gaily. They grant also
that certain arguments adduced in the Sacred Books, like
those, for example, which are based on the prophecies, have
no rational foundation to rest on. But they will defend
even these as artifices of preaching, which are justified by
life. Do they stop here? No, indeed, for they are ready
to admit, nay, to proclaim that Christ Himself manifestly
erred in determining the time when the coming of the
Kingdom of God was to take place, and they tell us that we
must not be surprised at this since even Christ was sub
ject to the laws of life ! After this what is to become of
the dogmas of the Church? The dogmas brim over with
flagrant contradictions, but what matter that since, apart
from the fact that vital logic accepts them, they are not re
pugnant to symbolical truth. Are we not dealing with
the infinite, and has not the infinite an infinite variety of
aspects? In short, to maintain and defend these theories
they do not hesitate to declare that the noblest homage that
can be paid to the Infinite is to make it the object of contra
dictory propositions ! But when they justify even contra
dictions, what is it that they will refuse to justify?
SUBJECTIVE ARGUMENTS.
But it is not solely by objective arguments that the non-
believer may be disposed to faith. There are also sub
jective ones at the disposal of the Modernists, and for those
they return to their doctrine of immanence. They en
deavor, in fact, to persuade their non-believer that down in
the very deeps of his nature and his life lie the need and
the desire for religion, and this not a religion of any kind,
but the specific religion known as Catholicism, which, they
say, is absolutely postulated by the perfect development of
life. And here We cannot but deplore once more, and
grievously, that there are Catholics who, while rejecting
immanence as a doctrine, employ it as a method of apolo
getics, and who do this so imprudently that they seem to
admit that there is in human nature a true and rigorous
necessity with regard to the supernatural order and not
merely a capacity and a suitability for the supernatural,
84 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
such as has at all times been emphasized by Catholic apolo
gists. Truth to tell it is only the moderate Modernists
who make this appeal to an exigency for the Catholic re
ligion. As for the others, who might be called integralists,
they would show to the non-believer, hidden away in the
very depths of his being, the very germ which Christ Him
self bore in His conscience, and which He bequeathed to
the world. Such, Venerable Brethren, is a summary de
scription of the apologetic method of the Modernists, in
perfect harmony, as you may see, with their doctrines
methods and doctrines brimming over with errors, made
not for edification but for destruction, not for the forma
tion of Catholics but for the plunging of Catholics into
heresy; methods and doctrines that would be fatal to any
religion.
THE MODERNIST AS REFORMER.
It remains for Us now to say a few words about the
Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, some
idea may be gained of the reforming mania, which pos
sesses them: in all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing
on which it does not fasten. Reform of philosophy, espe
cially in the seminaries: the scholastic philosophy is to be
relegated to the history of philosophy among obsolete sys
tems, and the young men are to be taught modern philoso
phy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we
live. Reform of theology : rational theology is to have modern
philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be
founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must
be for the future written and taught only according to their
modern methods and principles. Dogmas and their evolu
tion are to be harmonized with science and history. In the
Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that
have been duly reformed and are within the capacity of the
people. Regarding worship, the number of external de
votions is to be reduced, or at least steps must be taken
to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some
of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more in
dulgent on this head. Ecclesiastical government requires
to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its dis
ciplinary and dogmatic parts. Its spirit and its external
manifestations must be put in harmony with the public con
science, which is now wholly for democracy; a share in
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 85
ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the
lower ranks of the clergy, and even to the laity and
authority should be decentralized. The Roman Congrega
tions, and especially the Index and the Holy Office, are to
be reformed. The ecclesiastical authority must change its
line of conduct in the social and political world ; while keep
ing outside political and social organization, it must adapt
itself to those which exist in order to penetrate them with
its spir-t. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle
of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more im
portant than the passive, both in the estimation in which
they must be held and in the exercise of them. The clergy
are asked to return to their ancient lowliness and poverty
and in their ideas and action to be guided by the princi
ples of Modernism ; and there are some who, echoing the
teaching- of their Protestant masters, would like the sup
pression of ecclesiastical celibacy. What is there left in the
Church which is not to be reformed according to their
-principles ?
MODERNISM AND ALL THE HERESIES.
It may be, Venerable Brethren, that some may think We
have dwelt too long on this exposition of the doctrines of
the Modernists. But it was necessary, both in order to re
fute their customary charge that We do not understand
their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist
in scattered and unconnected theories but in a perfectly
organized body, all the parts of which are solidly joined
so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all.
For this reason, too, We have had to give this exposition a
somewhat didactic form and not to shrink from employing
certain uncouth terms in use among the Modernists. And
now, can anybody who takes a survey of the whole sys
tem be surprised that We should define it as the synthesis
of all heresies? Were one to attempt the task of collect
ing together all the errors that have been broached against
the faith and to concentrate the sap and substance of them
all into one, he could not better succeed than the Modern
ists have done. Nay, they have done more than this, for,
as We have already intimated, their system means the de
struction not of the Catholic religion alone but of all
religion. With good reason do the rationalists applaud
them, for the most sincere and the frankest among the ra-
86 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
tionalists warmly welcome the Modernists as their most
valuable allies
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 senti
ment 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
fantasies 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 con
viction 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 con
trary, 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 souls, 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 observa
tion 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
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 87
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? Is it, 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 re
ligionatheism? Certainly it is not the doctrine of
symbolism will save us from this. For if all the intel
lectual elements, as they call them, of religion are pure
symbols, will not the very name of God or of divine per
sonality 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 doc
trine 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 acception
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 Pan
theism. 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 un
knowable. Now what makes the unknowable unknowable
is its disproportion with the intelligible a disproportion
which nothing whatever, even in the doctrine of the Mod
ernist, 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 not see. Certainly this suffices to show
superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to
the annihilation of all religion. The first step in this direc
tion was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by
Modernism ; the next will plunge headlong into atheism.
88 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
PART II. THE CAUSE OF MODERNISM.
To penetrate still deeper into Modernism and to find
a suitable remedy for such a deep sore, it behooves Us,
Venerable Brethren, to investigate the causes which have
engendered it and which foster its growth. That the
proximate and immediate cause consists in a perversion of
the mind cannot be open to doubt. The remote causes seem
to Us to be reduced to two : curiosity and pride. Curiosity
by itself, if not prudently regulated, suffices to explain all
errors. Such is the opinion of Our Predecessor, Gregory
XVI, who wrote: A lamentable spectacle is that pre
sented by the aberrations of human reason when it yields
to the spirit of novelty, when against the warning of the
Apostle it seeks to know beyond what it is meant to know,
and when relying too much on itself it thinks it can find
the truth outside the Church wherein truth is found with
out the slightest shadow of error (Ep. Encycl. Singular!
nos, 7 Kal. Jul. 1834).
But it is pride which exercises an incomparably greater
sway over the soul to bind it and plunge into error, and
pride sits in Modernism as in its own house, finding sus
tenance everywhere in its doctrines and an occasion to
flaunt itself in all its aspects. It is pride which fills Mod
ernists with that confidence in themselves and leads them
to hold themselves up as the rule for all, pride which puffs
them up with that vain glory which allows them to regard
themselves as the sole possessors of knowledge, and makes
them say, inflated with presumption, We are not as the rest
of men,^ and which, to make them really not as other men,
leads them to embrace all kinds of the most absurd novel
ties ; it is pride which rouses in them the spirit of disobedi
ence and causes them to demand a compromise between
authority and liberty; it is pride that makes of them the
reformers of others, while they forget to reform themselves,
and which begets their absolute want of respect for author
ity, not excepting the supreme authority. No, truly, there
is no road which leads so directly and so quickly to Mod
ernism as pride. When a Catholic layman or a priest for
gets that precept of the Christian life which obliges us to re
nounce ourselves if we would follow Jesus Christ and neg
lects to tear pride from his heart, ah ! but he is a fully
ripe subject for the errors of Modernism. Hence, Vener-
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 89
able Brethren, it will be your first duty to thwart such
proud men, to employ them only in the lowest and ob
scurest offices; the higher they try to rise, the lower let
them be placed, so that their lowly position may deprive
them of the power of causing damage. Sound your young
clerics, too, most carefully, by yourselves and by the direct
ors of your seminaries, and when you find the spirit of
pride among any of them reject them without compunction
from the priesthood. Would to God that this had always
been done with the proper vigilance and constancy.
If we pass from the moral to the intellectual causes of
Modernism, the first which presents itself, and the chief
one, is ignorance. Yes, these very Modernists who pose as
Doctors of the Church, who puff out their cheeks when they
speak of modern philosophy, and show such contempt for
scholasticism, have embraced the one with all its false
glamour because their ignorance of the other has left
them without the means of being able to recognize con
fusion of thought, and to refute sophistry. Their whole
system, with all its errors, has been born of the alliance
between faith and false philosophy.
METHODS OF PROPAGANDISM.
If only they had displayed less zeal and energy in propa
gating it! But such is their activity and such their un
wearying capacity for work on behalf of their cause, that
one cannot but be pained to see them waste such- labor
in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have
been of such service to her had their efforts been better
employed. Their artifices to delude men s minds are of two
kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the sec
ond to devise and apply actively and patiently every instru
ment that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the
three chief difficulties for them are scholastic philosophy,
the authority of the Fathers and tradition, and the magis-
terium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting
war. ^For scholastic philosophy and theology they have
only ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or
fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain
it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them
with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that
a man is on the way to Modernism than when he begins to
show his dislike for this system. Modernists and their ad-
(jO ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
mirers should remember the proposition condemned by
Pius IX. The method and principles which have served
the doctors of scholasticism when- treating of theology no
longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the
progress of science (Syll. Prop. 13). They exercise all
their ingenuity in diminishing the force and falsifying the
character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight. But
for Catholics the second Council of Nicea will always have
the force of law, where it condemns those who dare, after
the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical
traditions, to invent novelties of some kind . . . or
endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the
legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church; and Catholics
will hold for law, also, the profession of the fourth Council
of Constantinople: We therefore profess to conserve and
guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apos
tolic Church by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by
the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by every
one of those divine interpreters the Fathers and Doctors of
the Church. Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and
Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of
the following declaration: I most firmly admit and em
brace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other
observances and constitutions of the Church. The Mod
ernists pass the same judgment on the most holy Fathers of
the Church as they pass on tradition, decreeing, with amaz
ing effrontery that, while personally most worthy of all
veneration, they were entirely ignorant of history and
criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of
the time in which they lived. Finally, the Modernists try
in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the
ecclesiastical magisterium itself by sacrilegiously falsify
ing its origin, character, and rights, and by freely repeating
the calumnies of its adversaries. To all the band of Mod
ernists may be applied those words which Our Predecessor
wrote with such pain : To bring contempt and odium on
the mystic Spouse of Christ, who is the true light, the
children of darkness have been wont to cast in her face
before the world a stupid calumny, and perverting the
meaning and force of things and words, to depict her as
the friend of darkness and igorance, and the enemy of light,
science, and progress (Motu-proprio, Ut mysticum, 14
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 91
March, 1891). This being so, Venerable Brethren, no won
der the Modernists vent all their gall and hatred on Catho
lics who sturdily fight the battles of the Church. But of all
the insults they heap on them those of ignorance and ob
stinacy are the favorites. When an adversary rises up
against them with an erudition and force that render him
redoubtable, they try to make a conspiracy of silence around
him to nullify the effects of his attack, while in flagrant
contrast with this policy towards Catholics, they load with
constant praise the writers who range themselves on their
side, hailing their works, exuding novelty in every page,
with choruses of applause; for them the scholarship of a
writer is in direct proportion to the recklessness of his
attacks on antiquity, and of his efforts to undermine tradi
tion and the ecclesiastical magisterium ; when one of their
number falls under the condemnations of the Church the
rest of them, to the horror of good Catholics, gather round
him, heap public praise upon him, venerate him almost as a
martyr to truth. The young, excited and confused by all
this clamor of praise and abuse, some of them afraid of
being branded as ignorant, others ambitious to be consid
ered learned, and both classes goaded internally by curiosity
and pride, often surrender and give themselves up to Mod
ernism.
And here we have already some of the artifices employed
by Modernists to exploit their wares. What efforts thev
make to win new recruits ! They seize upon chairs in the
seminaries and universities, and gradually make of them
chairs of pestilence. From these sacred chairs they scatter,
though not always openly, the seeds of their doctrines ;
the proclaim their teachings without disguise in congresses ;
they introduce them and make them the vogue in social in
stitutions. Under their own names and under pseudonyms
they publish numbers of books, newspapers, reviews, and
sometimes one and the same writer adopts a variety of pseu
donyms to trap the incautious reader into believing in a whole
multitude of Modernist writers in short they leave nothing
untried in action, discourses, writings, as though there were
a frenzy of propaganda upon them. And the results of all
this? We have to lament at the sight of many young men,
once full of promise and capable of rendering great services
to the Church, now gone astray. And there is another sight
92 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
that saddens Us too: that of so many other Catholics, who,
while they certainly do not go so far as the former, have
yet grown into the" habit, as though they had been breath
ing a poisoned atmosphere, of thinking and speaking and
writing with a liberty that ill becomes Catholics. They are
to be found among the laity, and in the ranks of the clergy,
and they are not wanting even in the last place where one
might expect to meet them, in religious institutes. If they
treat of Biblical questions, it is upon Modernist principles ;
if they write history, it is to search out with curiosity and
to publish openly, on the pretext of telling the whole truth
and with a species of ill-concealed satisfaction, everything
that looks to them like a stain in the history of the Church.
Under the sway of certain a priori rules they destroy as
far as they can the pious traditions of the people, and bring
ridicule on certain relics highly venerable from their an
tiquity. They are possessed by the empty desire of being
talked about, and they know they would never succeed in
this were they to say only what has been always said. It
may be that they have persuaded themselves that in all this
they are really serving God and the Church in reality they
only offend both, less perhaps by their works themselves
than by the spirit in which they write and by the encourage
ment they are giving to the extravagances of the Mod
ernists.
PART III. REMEDIES.
Against this host of grave errors, and its secret and open
advance Our Predecessor, Leo XIII, of happy memory,
worked strenuously, especially, as regards the Bible, both in
his words and his acts. But, as we have seen, the Mod
ernists are not easily deterred by such weapons with an
affectation of submission and respect, they proceeded to
twist the words of the Pontiff to their own sense, and his
acts they described as directed against others than them
selves. And the evil has gone on increasing from day to
day. We, therefore, Venerable Brethren, have determined
to adopt at once the most efficacious measures in Our power,
and We beg and conjure you to see to it that in this most
grave matter nobody will ever be able to say that you have
been in the slightest degree wanting in vigilance, zeal or
firmness. And what We ask of you and expect of you, We
ask and expect also of all other pastors of souls, of all e.du-
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 93
cators and professors of clerks, and in a very special way
of the superiors of religious institutions.
I. THE STUDY OF SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY.
i. In the first place, with regard to studies, We will and
ordain that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the
sacred sciences. It goes without saying that if anything is
met with among the scholastic doctors which may be re
garded as an excess of subtlety, or which is altogether desti
tute of probability, We have no desire whatever to propose
it for the imitation of present generations (Leo XIII Enc.
Aeterni Patris). And let it 1 be clearly understood above all
things that the scholastic philosophy We prescribe is that
which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us, and We,
therefore, declare that all the ordinances of Our Prede
cessor on this subject continue fully in force, and, as far as
may be necessary, We do decree anew, and confirm, and
ordain that they be by all strictly observed. In seminaries
where they may have been neglected let the Bishops impose
them and require their observance, and let this apply also to
the Superiors of religious institutions. Further let Profes
sors remember that they cannot set St. Thomas aside, espe
cially in metaphysical question, without grave detriment.
On this philosophical foundation the theological edifice is
to be solidly raised. Promote the study of theology, Ven
erable Brethren, by all means in your power, so that your
clerics on leaving the seminaries may admire and love it,
and always find their delight in it. For in the vast and
varied abundance of studies opening before the -mind de
sirous of truth, everybody knows how the old maxim de
scribes theology as so far in front of all others that every
science and art should serve it and be to it as handmaidens
(Leo XIII, Lett. ap. In Magna, Dec. 10, 1889). We will
add that We deem worthy of praise those who with full
respect for tradition, the Holy .Fathers, and the ecclesi
astical magisterium, undertake, with well-balanced judg
ment and guided by Catholic principles (which is not always
the case), seek to illustrate positive theology by throwing
the light of true history upon it. Certainly more attention
must be paid to positive theology than in the past, but this
must be done without detriment to scholastic theology, and
those are to be disapproved as of Modernist tendencies who
94 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
exalt positive theology in such a way as to seem to despise
the scholastic.
With regard to profane studies suffice it to recall here
what Our Predecessor has admirably said : Apply your
selves energetically to the study of natural sciences: the
brilliant discoveries and the bold and useful applications of
them made in our times which have won such applause by
our contemporaries will be an object of perpetual praise
for those that come after us (Leo XIII, Alloc., March 7,
1880). But this do without interfering with sacred studies,
as Our Predecessor in these most grave words prescribed :
// you carefully search for the cause of those errors you will
find that it lies in the fact that in these days when the
natural sciences absorb so much study, the more severe and
lofty studies have been proportionately neglected -some of
them have almost passed into oblivion, some of them are
pursued in a half-hearted or superficial way, and, sad to say,
now that they are fallen from their old estate, they have
been disfigured by perverse doctrines and monstrous errors
(loco, cit.) We ordain, therefore, that the study of natural
science in the seminaries be carried on under this law.
2. PRACTICAL APPLICATION.
2. All these prescriptions and those of Our Predecessor
are to be borne in mind whenever there is question of
choosing directors and professors for seminaries and Catho
lic universities. Anybody who in any way is found to be
imbued with Modernism is to be excluded without com
punction from these offices, and those who already occupy
them are to be withdrawn. The same policy is to be adopt
ed towards those who favor Modernism either by extolling
the Modernists or excusing their culpable conduct, by criti
cizing scholasticism, the Fathers, or by refusing obedi
ence to ecclesiastical authority in any of its depositaries;
and towards those who show a love of novelty in history,
archaeology, Biblical exegesis, and finally towards those
who neglect the sacred sciences or appear to prefer to them
the profane. In all this question of studies, Venerable
Brethren, you cannot be too watchful or too constant, but
most of all in the choice of professors, for as a rule the
students are modeled after the pattern of their masters.
Strong in the consciousness of your duty, act always pru
dently but vigorously.
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 95
Equal diligence and severity are to be used in examining
and selecting candidates for Holy Orders. Far, far from
the clergy be the love of novelty ! God hates the proud and
the obstinate. For the future the doctorate of theology and
canon law must never be conferred on anybody who has not
made the regular course of scholastic philosophy; if con
ferred it shall be held as null and void. The rules laid
down in 1896 by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and
Regulars for the clerics, both secular and regular, of Italy,
concerning the frequenting of the universities, We now
decree to be extended to all nations. Clerics priests in
scribed in a Catholic institute or university must not in the
future follow in civil universities those courses for which
there are chairs in the Catholic institutes to which they
belong. If this has been permitted anywhere in the past,
We ordain that it be not allowed for the future. Let the
Bishops who form the governing board of such Catholic
institutes or universities watch with all care that these Our
commands be constantly observed.
3. EPISCOPAL VIGILANCE OVER PUBLICATIONS.
3. It is also the duty of the Bishops to prevent writings
infected with Modernism or favorable to it from being read
when they have been published, and to hinder their publi
cation when they have not. No book or paper or periodical
of this kind must ever be permitted to seminarists or uni
versity students. The injury to them would be equal to that
caused by immoral reading nay, it would be greater for
such writings poison Christian life at its very fount. The
same decision is to be taken concerning the writings of
some Catholics, who, though not badly disposed themselves
but ill-instructed in theological studies and imbued with
modern philosophy, strive to make this harmonize with
the faith, and, as they say, to turn it to the account of the
faith. The name and reputation of these authors cause them
to be read without suspicion, and they are, therefore, all the
more dangerous in preparing the way of Modernism.
To give you some more general directions, Venerable
Brethren, in a matter of such moment, We bid you do
everything in your power to drive out of your dioceses,
even by solemn interdict, any pernicious books that may be
in circulation there. The Holy See neglects no means to
put down writings of this kind, but the number of them has
96 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
now grown to such an extent that it is impossible to cen
sure them all. Hence it happens that the medicine some
times arrives too late, for the disease has taken root during
the delay. We will, therefore, that the Bishops, putting
aside ^ all fear and the prudence of the flesh, despising the
outcries of the wicked, gently by all means but constantly,
do each his own share of this work, remembering the in
junctions of Leo XIII in the Apostolic Constitution Offi-
ciorium: Let the Ordinaries, acting in this also as Dele
gates of the Apostolic See, exert themselves to prescribe and
to put out of reach of the faithful injurious books or other
writings printed or circulated in their dioceses. In this
passage the Bishops, it is true, receive a right, but they
have also a duty imposed on them. Let no Bishop think
that he fulfills this duty by denouncing to us one or two
books, while a great many others of the same kind are being
published and circulated. Nor are you to be deterred by
the fact that a book has obtained the Imprimatur elsewhere,
both because this may be merely simulated, and because it
may have been granted through carelessness or easiness or
excessive confidence in the author as may sometimes hap
pen in religious Orders. Besides, just as the same food
does not agree equally with everybody, it may happen that
a book harmless in one place may, on account of the different
circumstances, be hurtful in another. Should a Bishop,
therefore, after having taken the advice of prudent persons,
deem it -right to condemn any of such books in his diocese.
We not only give him ample faculty to do so but We impose
it upon him as a duty to do so. Of course, it is Our wish
that in such action proper regard be used, and sometimes
it will suffice to restrict the prohibition to the clergy; but
even in such cases it will be obligatory on Catholic book
sellers not to put on sale books condemned by the Bishop.
And while We are on this subject of booksellers, We wish
the Bishops to see to it that they do not, through desire for
gain, put on sale unsound books. It is certain that in the
catalogues of some of them the books of the Modernists
are not unfrequently announced with no small praise. If
they refuse obedience let the Bishops have no hesitation in
depriving them of the title of Catholic booksellers ; so, too,
and with more reason, if they have the title of Episcopal
booksellers, and if they have that of Pontifical, let them be
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 97
denounced to the Apostolic, See. Finally, We remind all of
the XXVI. article of the above-mentioned Constitution
Oltidorum: All those who hare obtained an apostolic faculty
to read and keep forbidden books, are not thereby author
ized to read books and periodicals forbidden by the local
Ordinaries, unless the apostolic faculty expressly concedes
permission to read and keep books condemned by anybody.
4. CENSORSHIP.
4. But it is not enough to hinder the reading and the
sale of bad books it is also necessary to prevent them from
being printed. Hence let the Bishops use the utmost sever
ity in granting permission to print. Under the rules of the
Constitution Officiorum, many publications require the au
thorization of the Ordinary, and in some dioceses it has been
made the custom to have a suitable number of official cen
sors for the examination of writings. We have the highest
praise for this institution, and We not only exhort, but We
order that it be extended to all dioceses. In all episcopal
Curias, therefore, let censors be appointed for the revision
of works intended for publication, and let the censors be
chosen from both ranks of the clergy secular and regular
men of age, knowledge and prudence who will know how
to follow the golden mean in their judgments. It shall be
their office to examine everything which requires permission
for publication according to Articles XLI. and XLII. of
the above-mentioned Constitution. The Censor shall give
his verdict in writing. If it be favorable, the Bishop will
give the permission for publication by the word Imprima
tur, which must always be preceded by the Nihil obstat and
the name of the Censor. In the Curia of Rome official
censors shall be appointed just as elsewhere, and the ap
pointment of them shall appertain to the Master of the
Sacred Palaces, after they have been proposed to the Car
dinal Vicar and accepted by the Sovereign Pontiff. It will
also be the office of the Master of the Sacred Palaces to
select the censor for each writing. Permission for pub
lication will be granted by him as well as by the Cardinal
Vicar or his Vicegerent, and this permission, as above pre
scribed, must always be preceded by the Nihil obstat and
the name of the Censor. Only on very rare and exceptional
occasions, and on the prudent decision of the Bishop, shall
it be possible to omit mention of the Censor. The name of
98 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
the Censor shall never be made known to the authors until
he shall have given a favorable decision, so that he may
not have to suffer annoyance either while he is engaged in
the examination of a writing or in case he should deny his
approval. Censors shall never be chosen from the religious
orders until the opinion of the Provincial, or in Rome of the
General, has been privately obtained, and the Provincial or
the General must give a conscientious account of the char
acter, knowledge and orthodoxy of the candidate. We ad
monish religious superiors of their solemn duty never to
allow anything to be published by any of their subjects with
out permission from themselves and from the Ordinary.
Finally We affirm and declare that the title of Censor has
no value and can never be adduced to give credit to the
private opinions of the person who holds it.
PRIESTS AS EDITORS.
Having said this much in general, W r e now ordain in
particular a more careful observance of Article XLII. of the
above-mentioned Constitution Officiorum. It is forbidden to
secular priests, without the previous consent of the Ordi
nary, to undertake the direction of papers or periodicals.
This permission shall be withdrawn from any priest who
makes a wrong use of it after having been admonished.
With regard to priests who are correspondents or collabora
tors of periodicals, as it happens not infrequently that they
write matter infected with Modernism for their papers or
periodicals, let the Bishops see to it that this is not permit
ted to happen, and, should it happen, let them warn the
writers or prevent them from writing. The Superiors of
religious orders, too, We admonish with all authority to do
the same, and should they fail in this duty let the Bishops
make due provision with authority delegated by the Su
preme Pontiff. Let there be, as far as this is possible, a
special Censor for newspapers and periodicals written by
Catholics. It shall be his office to read in due time each
number after it has been published, and if he find anything
dangerous in it let him order that it be corrected. The
Bishop shall have the same right even when the Censor has
seen nothing objectionable in a publication.
5. CONGRESSES.
5. We have already mentioned congresses and public
gatherings as among the means used by the Modernists to
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM 99
propagate and defend their opinions. In the future Bishops
shall not permit Congresses of priests except on very rare
occasions. When they do permit them it shall only be on
condition that matters appertaining to the Bishops or the
Apostolic See be not treated in them, and that no motions
or postulates be allowed that would imply a usurpation of
sacred authority, and that no mention be made in them of
Modernism, presbyterianism, or laicism. At Congresses of
this kind, which can only be held after permission in writing
has been obtained in due time and for each case, it shali
not be lawful for priests of other dioceses to take part
without the written permission of their Ordinary. Further,
no priest must lose sight of the solemn recommendation of
Leo XIII. : Let priests hold as sacred the authority of their
bishops, let them take it for certain that the sacerdotal min
istry, if not exercised under the guidance of the Bishops,
can never be either holy, or very fruitful or respectable
(Lett. Encyc. Nobilissima Gallorum, 10 Feb., 1884).
6. DIOCESAN WATCH COMMITTEES.
6. But of what avail, Venerable Brethren, will be all
Our commands and prescriptions if they be not dutifully
and firmly carried out? And, in order that this may be
done, it has seemed expedient to Us to extend to all dio
ceses the regulations laid down with great wisdom many
years ago by the Bishops of Umbria for theirs.
"In order," they say, "to extirpate the errors already
propagated and to prevent their further diffusion, and to
remove those teachers of impiety through whom the per
nicious effects of such diffusion are being perpetuated, this
sacred Assembly, following the example of St. Charles
Borromeo, has decided to establish in each of the dioceses
a Council consisting of approved members of both branches
of the clergy, which shall be charged with the task of noting
the existence of errors and the devices by which new ones
are introduced and propagated, and to inform the Bishop
of the whole so that he may take counsel with them as to
the best means for nipping the evil in the bud and prevent
ing it spreading for the ruin of souls or, worse still, gaming
strength and growth" (Acts of the Congress of the Bishops
of Umbria, Nov., 1849, tit. 2, art. 6). We decree, there
fore, that in every diocese a council of this kind, which We
are pleased to name "the Council of Vigilance," be instituted
100 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
without delay. The priests called to form part in it shall
he chosen somewhat after the manner above prescribed for
the Censors, and they shall meet every two months on an
appointed day under the presidency of the Bishop. They
shall be bound to secrecy as to their deliberations and de
cisions, and their function shall be as follows: They shall
watch most carefully for every trace and sign of Modern
ism both in publications and in teaching, and, to preserve
from it the clergy and the young, they shall take all prudent,
prompt and efficacious measures, Let them combat novel
ties of words remembering the admonitions of Leo XIII.
(Instruct. S.C. NN. EE. EE., 27 Jan., 1902): It is im
possible to approve in Catholic publications of a style in
spired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety
of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new
order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on
new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new vocation of
the clergy, on a new Christian civilization. Language of
this kind is not to be tolerated either in books or from chairs
of learning. The Councils must not neglect the books treat
ing of the pious traditions of different places or of sacred
relics. Let them not permit such questions to be discussed
in periodicals destined to stimulate piety neither with ex
pressions savoring of mockery or contempt, nor by dogmatic
pronouncements, especially when, as is often the case, what
is stated as a certainty either does not pass the limits of
probability or is merely based on prejudiced opinion. Con
cerning sacred relics, let this be the rule: When Bishops,
who alone are judges in such matters, know for certain that
a relic is not genuine, let them remove it at once from the
v-eneration of the faithful ; if the authentications of a relic
happen to have been lost through civil disturbances, or in
any other way, let it not be exposed for public veneration
until the Bishop has verified it. The argument of prescrip
tion or well-founded presumption is to have weight only
when devotion to a relic is commendable by reason of its
antiquity, according to the sense of the Decree issued in
1896 by the Congregation of Indulgences and Sacred Rel
ics: Ancient -relics are to retain the veneration they have
always enjoyed except when in individual instances there
are clear arguments that they are false or suppositious. In
passing judgment on pious traditions be it always borne in
ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM lOl
mind that in this matter the Church uses the greatest pru
dence, and that she does not allow traditions of this kind to
he narrated in books except with the utmost caution and
with the insertion of the declaration imposed by Urban
VI 11., and even then she does not guarantee the truth of
the fact narrated ; she simply does not forbid belief in things
for which human arguments are not wanting. On this mat
ter the Sacred Congregation of Rites, thirty years ago, de
creed as follows: These apparitions and revelations have
neither been approved nor condemned by the Holy See,
which has simply allowed that they be believed on purely
human faith, on the tradition which they relate, corrobora
ted by testimonies and documents worthy of credence (De
cree, May 2, 1877). Anybody who follows this rule has no
cause for fear. For the devotion based on any apparition,
in as far as it regards the fact itself, that is to say, in as
far as it is relative, always implies the hypothesis of the
truth of the fact; while in as far as it is absolute, it must
always be based on the truth, seeing that its object is the
persons of the saints who are honored. The same is true
of relics. Finally, We entrust to the Councils of Vigilance
the duty of overlooking assiduously and diligently social
institutions as well as writings on social questions so that
they may harbor no trace of Modernism, but obey the pre
scriptions of the Roman Pontiffs.
7. TRIENNIAL RETURNS.
7. Lest what We have laid down thus far should fall
into oblivion, We will and ordain that the Bishops of all
dioceses, a year after the publication of these letters and
every three years thenceforward, furnish the Holy See with
a diligent and sworn report on all the prescriptions con
tained" in them, and on the doctrines that find currency
among the clergy, and especially in the seminaries and other
Catholic institutions, and We impose the like obligation on
the Generals of Religious Orders with regard to those under
them.
This, Venerable Brethren, is what We have thought it
Our duty to write to you for the salvation of all who believe.
The adversaries of the Church will doubtless abuse what
We have said to refurbish the old calumny by which We
are traduced as the enemy of science and of the progress of
humanity. Tn order to oppose a new answer to such accu-
102 ENCYCLICAL ON MODERNISM
sations, which the history of the Christian religion refutes
by never-failing arguments, it is Our intention to establish
and develop by every means in Our power a special Institute
in which, through the co-operation of those Catholics who
are most eminent for their learning, the progress of science
and other realms of knowledge may be promoted under
the guidance and teaching of Catholic truth. God grant
that we may happily realize our design with the ready as
sistance of all those who bear a sincere love for the Church
of Christ. But of this We will speak on another occasion.
Meanwhile, Venerable Brethren, fully confident in your
zeal and work, We beseech for you with Our whole heart
and soul the abundance of heavenly light, so that in the
midst of this great perturbation of men s minds from the
insidious invasions of error from every side, you may see
clearly what you ought to do and may perform the task
with all your strength and courage. May Jesus Christ, the
author and finisher of our faith, be with you by His power ;
and may the Immaculate Virgin, the destroyer of all here
sies, be with you by her prayers and aid. And We, as a
pledge of Our affection and of divine assistance in adversity,
grant most affectionately and with all Our heart to you,
your clergy and people the Apostolic Benediction.
Given at St. Peter s, Rome, on the 8th day of September,
1907, the fifth year of our Pontificate.
PIUS X., POPE.
APPENDIX
Explanatory Notes.
AGNOSTICISM.
Epistemology is the theory of the value of our knowledge.
Its scope is to deal with the question, "What do we really
know?" When discussing the objects of knowledge there
are two terms that should be accurately defined and care
fully distinguished, Noumena and Phenomena. In ancient
and medieval psychology these words, when used at all,
served to mark the distinction between substances and acci
dents. The underlying and unchanging essence, or sub
stance, was called Noumenon, because knowledge of it be
longed especially to the nous or intellect. The changing ac
cidents, such as color, taste and the rest, were called Phe
nomena, or appearances, because they were those aspects of
the object which were impressed on the senses. By modern
writers, since the time of Kant, the distinction contrasts the
object as it is in itself with the object as reflected in the mir
ror of our senses, or in the ideas formed of it by our intel
lect. The thing, as it is in itself, is called Noumenon ; the
reflections, images and symbols of it in our senses, or in our
intellect are called Phenomena. Hence, Phenomena exist
entirely in ourselves, but Noumena exist in themselves and
are entirely independent of our seeing them or thinking
about them. Accidents, in the Aristotelian sense, as well as
substance, would be noumena, according to this definition.
Agnosticism restricts all our knowledge to Phenomena in
the subjective sense. Noumena, or things in themselves, it
declares to be unknown and unknowable. From this stand
point each of us is everlastingly imprisoned within the circle
of his own subjective impressions. The world of objects,
their nature and their relation to one another, are separated
from our minds by an impassible gulf.
Hence, Agnosticism, as applied to theology, denies that
God, as He really is in nature and attributes, can be known
by human reason. God, in the language of modern Philos
ophy, is generally called the Absolute or Unconditioned.
Since the Modernists derive many of their principles from
the Epistemological system of Kant, the student of the En-
IO4 AGNOSTICISM
cyclical will find some knowledge of Kant s peculiar form of
agnosticism an invaluable aid in interpreting the condemned
errors. The sage of Konigsberg, as Kant has been called,
distinguished between the Pure or speculative Reason and
the Practical Reason. We may mention in passing that in
the Modernists system faith corresponds to the Practical
Reason.
Every idea is a unifying principle; all our inner experi
ences, our thoughts, emotions, desires, appetites, pains and
pleasures, are unified in the soul. This soul is the Psycho
logical Idea. Objects that exist outside of us form one
world. This unifying principle is called the Cosmological
Idea. To reach a perfect unity, to unify our inner experi
ence and the outer world of objects, the possible and the
actual orders, we reduce or trace all things to God. This is
the Theological Idea. If we maintain that our specula
tive reason can prove the existence of a reality
corresponding to each of these three ideas, we are
lodged, in spite of ourselves, according to Kant,
in antinomies or contradictions. The existence of the
soul, its freedom and immortality, the existence of a world
of objects outside of us, and the existence of God are, of
logical necessity, declared to be unknown and unknowable.
Reason being immanent, or indwelling, in each individual,
cannot reach out to these objects, which are not contained in
the phenomena or states of consciousness. It is well to note
here that the Modernists theory of Immanence is derived
from Kant s view of the source of our knowledge of funda
mental religious truths. But when we pass from knowledge
to action, when we come to consider the moral law that should
govern our conduct, and that issues from the depth of our
own moral nature, we become absolutely certain of the free
dom and immortality of the soul and of the existence of
God as necessary postulates of that law. Kant exalted action
above knowledge. Therefore, Pragmatism, which values
knowledge only in so far as it enables us to act successfully
and produce satisfactory results, is evidently an offshoot of
Kant s teaching. Medieval theology and philosophy regarded
knowledge for its own sake as supremely valuable, but in the
new view all knowledge is degraded to the low position of
being the tool of successful action. The Modernists are all
Pragmatists. They even go so far as to teach that dogmas
INTELLECTUALISM IO5
of Catholic faith are of little or no value considered as stand
ards of belief, and that their chief and primary significance
is to be sought in their power to suggest attitudes or modes
of moral conduct. Hence their system of philosophy is
sometimes called "The Philosophy of Action."
The Catholic church teaches on the subjects dealt with
by agnosticism :
(a) That God s existence and attributes can be known by
the light of reason.
(b) That He cannot be seen by us directly or, to use the
Scriptural expression, face to face (as the Ontologists
teach), with our natural powers. Until we attain the Be
atific Vision we can only know Him as He is mirrored in the
works of His hands.
(c) That no creature, even though his mind be irradia
ted by the light of glory, can comprehend, that is, perfectly
know, God.
(d) That no word can be used or predicated in the same
sense of God and finite things, but only in an analogical or
modified sense. But we are able, by a formal or mental ab
straction, to understand the difference between the term as
applied to God and as applied to creatures, so that our
knowledge of God, so far as it goes, is accurate and free
from error.
INTELLECTUALISM.
The word Intellectualism has one meaning in psychology,
another in aesthetics and a third in philosophy.
1. In. Psychology it is the theory that undertakes to ex
plain all our emotions and desires as secondary phases, by
products or epiphcnomena of our knowledge, which is re
garded as the fundamental psychological process.
2. In Aesthetics it is the theory which lavs stress on the
intellectual content of the aesthetic object as the great factor
.of aesthetic value and not. on the sensual element which ex
cites passion and emotion.
3. In Philosophy, intellectnalism means that all reality
may become an object of knowledge. Intellectualism, there
fore, in the philosophical sense, is opposed to Agnosticism,
because the former holds that Noumena may be known,
while Agnosticism proclaims that they are unknown and un
knowable. It is in the philosophical and psychological senses
that the Modernists repudiate it.
IO6 IMMANENCE
There are certain truths which Catholic theologians call
Motives of Credibility, with which we shall deal more
fully later on. They hold that these truths may be known by
the natural light of reason. They are the foundations of our
faith, and by means of them we render a rationabile obse-
qu mni, or we give a rational assent to the truths of revel
ation. Such Motives of Credibility are the existence of
God, the fact of Christ s resurrection, the authenticity of the
Scriptures, etc. But the Modernists strenuously deny that
speculative reason is capable of demonstrating these truths.
IMMANENCE.
We have derived the Modernists theory of Immanence
from Kant s teaching of the impotency of the Pure Reason
and the authority of the Practical Reason, or, to use a more
popular term, of the conscience in the domain of religious
belief. In order to understand what they mean by Imman
ence we must carefully distinguish three elements or factors
of our religious faith :
A God.
B The Religious sentiment.
C Our need of the Divine.
Immanence, or the indwelling of God in man, may be so
understood as not to exclude His transcendance. Catholic
belief in the immensity of God implies immanence of this
kind. The principle of the Divine CONCURSUS, or im
mediate co-operation of the Deity in all the acts of finite
beings, signifies that every effect flows from two causes the
Infinite, or First, and the finite or secondary cause.
Divine immanence is also used to mean that God is in us,
identical with our nature, and the sole principle, or source,
of all our actions. Thus understood, immanence logically
implies Pantheism.
The Immanence theory in philosophy would reduce all
reality to elements immanent or indwelling in conscious
ness. Both Science and Philosophy would thus be reduced
to pure subjective experience. It is evident that the Mod
ernist s conception of religious experience was suggested by
this philosophy of immanence, which has been elaborated by
a group of recent German thinkers.
By vital immanence, Modernists understand an experi
ence in our own consciousness of the underplay, if I may so
THE SUBCONSCIOUS. IOJ
speak, of the three immanent elements God, Religious
Sentiment, and the Need of the Divine.
THE SUBCONSCIOUS.
The phrase, "The Threshold of Consciousness," has ob
tained great vogue in modern psychology. We know that a
stimulus applied to the sense of touch, for instance, at am
part of the human body, must have a certain strength or in
tensity in order to produce a conscious sensation. When
the feeling first comes into clear consciousness, does it sud
denly spring up there, or has it been gradually and continu
ously gathering strength in the soul until it stands out viv
idly in our inner experience? The latter is the view favored
by modern psychologists. Hence, if, figuratively speaking,
we assume a line of demarcation below which a mental state
is not consciously felt and above which it is, the term "Thres
hold of Consciousness" will be an appropriate name for it.
Below the threshold of consciousness, therefore, is the re
gion of our sub-conscious life ; of vital processes that are in
tensely real, but which, so long as they remain thus, cannot
be known and investigated by us.
Another word used in this connection is Subliminal, limen
being the Latin for threshold. "As attention moves away."
writes Prof. J. Ward in his Essay on Psychology, "from a
presentation, it is intensively diminished, and when the pre
sentation is below the threshold of consciousness its in
tensity is then subliminal, whatever that of the physical
stimulus may be." Prof. Angell, in his Psychology, says:
"To the activity of the sub-conscious we are probably in
debted for many of our unreasoned impressions and senti
ments, for many of our unexpected ideas, for certain of our
unreflective movements, especially those of the habitual va
riety. Not a few of our personal preferences and prejudices
are probably referable to influences originating here. Such
phenomena as those of automatic writing with the plan-
chette, where persons may write considerable numbers of
words without any clear idea of what is being written, be
long -to the border-line of influences lying between the sub
conscious and the unconscious. Taken all in all, subcon
scious factors must go to make up a very respectable por
tion of our total personality, and no doubt are accountable
for manv of the characteristics which sometime? cause n<
I08 NEED OF THE DIVINE
to wonder at ourselves and question whether or not we
really have the kind of character we supposed." "Virtual
Intention," in the treatise on " Human Acts," may, we think,
be similarly explained.
Faith in God arises, according to the Modernist, from a
stimulation of the religious sentiment, the stimulus being
our need of the Divine. The religious sentiment first slum
bers in the subliminal or subconscious self. Its activity,
when appropriately stimulated, rises above the threshold of
consciousness, our religious experience begins, and, al
though God, immanent in us, is unknown and unknowable
by our reason, the religious sentiment, in some mystical
manner comprehends Him with a conviction and certainty
far greater, if we are to accept the gratuitous assertion of the
Modernists, than that which is produced by scientific dem
onstration. The theory that the religious sentiment- car.
directly and immediately and not discursively or by de
ductive reasoning, enjoy an intuition of God is evidently
borrowed from the system of the Ontologists, who teach
that we can see God face to face by our natural powers.
NEED OF THE DIVINE.
There are two diametrically opposed views of the nature
of progress. According to one, which is the older, we ad
vance because we have in our minds an idea, however vague,
of some end, goal or purpose, which we want to reach. Life
is believed to be a chain of means and ends under the control
and direction of one supreme purpose or goal which gives
value and direction to all intermediate activities. According
to the other, which is the newer, we go forward because our
present situation is disorganized, unsatisfactory and painful
to our feelings, in other words, because of some need which
urges us to activity in order to overcome existing friction
and reorganize the discordant elements immanent in our
present consciousness. This view of progress has been derived
from the theory of evolution, which repudiates teleology or
design. Just as the advocates of evolution deny that God
created finite things and determined their growth and de
velopment according to ideas pre-existing in the Divine
mind (prototypal ideas, as they have been called), so also
they reject the notion that social, economic or scientific
progress has been due to anv definite ends or aims which
NEED OF THE DIVINE IOQ
men propose to themselves, and ascribe the onward march
of humanity to an impulse of no nobler character than that
which urges a man to seek shelter from a storm, to seek
food when he is hungry, or to lie down when he is fatigued.
Hence, other factors being equal, where there is greater
need there will be greater- activity and more marked prog
ress. Natives of tropical countries, who have few needs and
find for these satisfaction at hand, are static and indolent,
while peoples of northern climes are sturdy and ambitious,
ever discovering new methods of controlling the forces of
nature, because they have to maintain an inexorable struggle
for existence amidst unfavorable conditions of soil and cli
mate. The progress of dogma, according to Modernists,
has been due to the assaults of heresy.
According to the evolutionary theory of progress, move
ment is a tcrgo, or from behind ; according to the Christian
view, it is a frontc, or from an end, idea, purpose or goal
projected into the future and constantly alluring us onward
and upward. In other words, we are pursuing an Ideal, but
Ideals are abhorred by evolutionists.
In the case of the individual, it seems to us that both
factors of progress, the teleological or ideal, and the evolu
tionary one of exigencies or wants, play their part. It is
a question to be solved by a knowledge of character, which
of the two factors predominates.
The Modernists attribute the origin and growth of re
ligious experience, faith and revelation to a vital need of
the Divine. The word "vital" signifies a growing, chang
ing, immanent process. Consequently, our inner experience
and faith in revelation are not different from our other
vital processes, but are constantly developing by assimilation
and elimination. The immutability, therefore, of dogma is
a delusion from the Modernist s standpoint. This theory is
radically different from the development of dogma as ex
plained by Newman and advocated by some of the greatest
minds in the Catholic Church. They teach that the Revela
tion given by God to man was completed in the Apostolic
age, but that the infallible magisterium of the Church em
phasizes now one part, now another, of the content of the
Deposit of Faith, according to the necessitv of the times.
The Modernist s theory must not be confounded with the
dialectical or logical evolution of dogma, handed down from
age to age by theologians, who by analysis and reflection
IIO SUGGESTION
are constantly bringing into explicit view aspects of Chris
tian truth logically implied in previous formulas.
SUGGESTION.
Suggestion is another word that Modern Psychology has
made extremely popular. Every person is supposed to pos
sess some degree of suggestibility or capacity to be influ
enced by others. Hypnotic suggestion is its extreme form.
We distinctly feel the influence of suggestion whenever
we associate with a strong- personality. Its effect is to arrest
the ordinary train of our ideas ; to check and obstruct our
habitual modes of action.
Prof. Baldwin distinguishes the following varieties of
suggestion : Among the many distinguishable phases of
suggestion apart from Hypnosis, which illustrates them all
are : ( I ) Sensori motor suggestion, movement due to a
suggested sensation; (2) ideo-motor suggestion, movement
due to a suggested idea; (3) motor-suggestion as such,
direct suggestion of movement; (4) sensory suggestion, the
suggestion of sensory experience (e. g., that a red light is
green) ; (5) ideal suggestion, suggestion of thoughts, be
liefs, etc.; (6) personality suggestion, the peculiar sug
gestive influence of persons as such; (7) contrary sugges
tion, the production of effects actions notably the con
trary of those properly due to what is suggested; (8) nega
tive suggestion or suggestive inhibition, the removal of
something from consciousness by suggestion ; (9) organic
suggestion, the successful suggestion of organic effects ;
(10) hysterical suggestion, the suggestive conditions of
hysteria ; ( 1 1 ) social suggestion, the normal acceptance of
"hints" and more than hints from the social milieu; (12)
imitative suggestion, suggestibility to models and copies of
all sorts for imitation. 5
Modernists have recourse to suggestion to explain the
twofold value of dogmas proclaimed orally or in writing.
By means of it these awaken a religious experience once
actual but now dormant in an individual and also generate
it for the first time in the soul of a person possessing the
proper moral dispositions.
DUALISM.
The tendency to reduce things to ultimate principles
which are independent and opposed to one another is called
DUALISM 1 1 1
Dualism. The tendency to find gradations between con
traries, or to reduce them to a more fundamental prin
ciple, in which their opposition and apparent contradiction
become reconciled or unified, is called Monism. At the
present time there is a strong bias in the world of thought
against all forms of Dualism. Like so many other features
of the spirit of the age, Monism received its influence from
Kant. He appeared in the history of philosophy as mediator
between the scepticism of Hume and the dogmatism of
Leibnitz and Wolff. No two systems could be more dia
metrically opposed, and yet the philosopher of Konigsberg
professed to have discovered a more profound principle
which reconciled scepticism and dogmatism. Hence since
the days of Kant the MEDIATION OF OPPOSITES
may be said to have become a favorite philosophical method.
The aphorism that every error is a half truth was modified
into the assumption that opposing and contradictory theo
ries or hypotheses can be conciliated by mediationthat is,
by the discovery of a higher principle which advances be
yond both and embodies the element of value contained in
each of them.
Hegel, carrying Kant s assumptions to what he conceived
to be their inevitable logical conclusions, rejected the prin
ciple of Contradiction, maintaining the identity of being
and not being. How far the Modernists have been influ
enced by this suicidal hypothesis of Hegel may be seen in
their assertion that the greatest honor we can offer the
Deity is to ascribe contradictory attributes to Him.
There are various forms of Dualism.
(a) Theological Dualism appears in the Zoroastrian
religion with its opposition of Ahriman, the Evil One, and
Ormuzd, the Good One. Zoroastrian Dualism, in the Chris
tian era, reappeared in the form of the Manichaean heresy.
(b) Anthropological Dualism is the system which pro
claims the body and soul to be essentially distinct in essence.
(c) Soteriological Dualism explains the scheme of sal
vation by distinguishing between God as a principle tran
scending the universe, and man as His creature whom He,
of His own free will, redeems.
(d) Sociological Dualism is found in the distinction
between the Church and State; between the laity and the
clergy ; between the absolute monarch and his subjects.
1 12 PRAGMATISM
(e) Finally, the Dualism between faith and science is
especially an object of detestation to Modernists.
Although they proclaim that each has its own province
that faith deals with Noumena and science with Phe
nomena yet they hold that man cannot abide a Dualism
and insist on harmonizing the two. The method which they
approve as alone satisfactory is to subject faith to the con
trol of science.
PRAGMATISM.
Pragmatism is a system of philosophy, or rather an atti
tude assumed towards the whole world of thought and
reality, which values everything by its practical effects.
All knowledge is related to action as means to end. Hence,
the old ideal of pursuing knowledge for its own sake is
derided as a mere will-o -the-wisp, or mere fata morgana,
the pursuit of which leads us far away from the true, the
beautiful and the good. Its test or standard of the value
of any principle or system is the practical difference, its
acceptance or non-acceptance will involve for the individual
and the race. No philosophical theory was ever more
vague, and this very vagueness, while it commends it to
many persons of conflicting philosophical and theological
leanings, renders it also inane and useless. Not even the
doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, which would seem to be of
all others the most remote from our practical concerns,
can be said to be without some practical effects; but the
general disposition of the masses is to . define the word
"practical" in a very narrow sense and restrict its applica
tion to secular concerns. The popularity of the theory is,
in this country, especially unfortunate ; indeed, Pragmatism
may be said to be a philosophical statement of the predomi
nant motives that have influenced the people of the United
States in the course of their history, and especially of those
that have shaped our present industrial organization.
Pragmatism, as applied by the Modernists, means an
interpretation, or rather a valuation, of the truths of the
Christian religion by their bearing on moral conduct.
Stripped of its nebulous verbiage and baldly viewed, it is
identical with the principle that the end justifies the means.
How opposed it is to the entire Christian scheme may be
inferred from the emphasis which the Church has always
laid on the distinction between things that are intrinsically
PRAGMATISM 113
good and things that are intrinsically bad. For instance, she
has always taught that no motive or reason can excuse a
lie, since, of its inmost character, a lie is opposed to the
Divine nature, which is Truth itself. But no consistent
Pragmatist can refuse to indorse lying when the balance of
results would be beneficial.
Pragmatism, in any form, is clearly incompatible with
belief in the existence of an absolutely perfect God ; for an
"ALL HOLY ONE" is an unchangeable standard of truth
and right. The results, therefore, of doctrine in its effect
on human conduct are of secondary importance. Pragma
tism, or the deification of success, or valuation by results,
is opposed to a belief in the absolute and makes all things
relative, like Agnosticism and Positivism.
It is interesting to trace the connection between Pragma
tism and the theory of Selective Attention. It is beyond
question that we merely attend to that which is of special
interest and, therefore, in some sense, of practical value for
us. Under how many almost totally different aspects will
the same object be considered by persons with different
interests? The flower to the botanist is a specimen that
illustrates certain scientific principles of growth and classi
fication; to the resthete it is an object of beauty; to the
florist it is an article for sale. The same person will appeal
to the lawyer merely as a client ; to the politician as a voter ;
to the clergyman as a member of his congregation ; to the
tailor as a customer, etc. This theory of Selective Attention
has been carried to such an extreme that some of its advo
cates hold that we not merely determine by Selective Atten
tion what will dominate for the time our consciousness, but
that we thereby, as it were, create reality. In other words,
we make things exist by the process of directing attention
to them. Of course it is true that, practically speaking,
only those things exist for us in which we have an interest
and to which, consequently, we direct attention ; but the
assumption that our thinking gives objects reality is one
of those wild and sophistical speculations which serve to
discredit philosophy in the eyes of thousands. The hypothe
sis underlying Pragmatism is precisely the same as that
underlying the extravagant theory of Selective Attention.
Objects or truths are assumed to have no reality except
that which they have for us. Consequently, the criterion
1 14 DOGMA
of truth, goodness and beauty which Pragmatism espouses
is the following : Consider if, and how far,, your interests
are affected, and the answer will determine the whole value
of the proposition under investigation.
DOGMA.
It will be interesting and instructive to examine in some
detail how the Modernists apply their principles in explain
ing the nature and development of Dogma. In this part I
shall follow closely the lead of Laberthonnierre, who has
published two excellent articles in the September and Octo
ber numbers of "Annales De Philosophic Chretienne," as
part of a review of Monsieur Le Roy s well-known volume,
"Dogme et Critique." A prejudice exists in the minds of
many persons at the present time against dogmatic religion.
Le Roy ascribes its origin to what he calls the Intellectual-
ist conception. The characteristic of Intellectualism, which
has been already explained, is that it regards as secondary
and derived the moral and practical meaning of dogma,
while it proclaims the intellectual or theoretical sense to be
its essential or constitutive element. But Dogma, thus
viewed, is, according to Modernists, of its very nature
incapable of. verification and unthinkable. Perhaps it may
be said that, though intrinsically incapable of verification, it
has extrinsic evidence in its favor and appeals effectually to
the human mind in the name of authority .?. In this
hypothesis it would enslave the human spirit, which im
periously demands freedom, independence and autonomy.
Neither religious doctrine nor moral obligation should be
considered as having a transcendant origin or as coming
to us from without, but as pullulating or springing from
our own nature. The Transcendant hypothesis, according
to" the Modernists, would place an intolerable yoke upon
the; human mind. Le Roy proceeds to subject certain Dog
mas to critical examination in the light of the Intellectual-
ist conception, for the purpose of showing that, thus inter
preted, they are a mere mirage that deceives our mental
vision. Take, for example, the Dogma of . the Personality
of God. If we interpret.it according to ordinary intellectual
standards or, in other words, experience, we shall fall into
anthropomorphism. For what is our notion of personality
in last analysis ? A man is said to be a person because he is
sui juris or self-conscious and exercises control over his
DOGMA 115
thoughts and volitions. But we cannot apply this concept
which is derived from our own psychological experience to
God without reducing Him to the level of man.
May we not say, however, that the Divine Personality is
incomparable and transcendant ; that no term can be predi
cated univocally, but only analogically, of God and finite
beings? But Le Roy holds that any form of analogy con
sists in establishing a resemblance between God and crea
tures, in attributing the perfections of the finite to the
infinite, in thinking of the Deity in terms of human quali
ties, and, consequently, cannot escape anthropomorphism.
A Dogma of a different type is the Resurrection of Christ.
From it especially the Modernists elaborate their theory of
faith and religious knowledge. By the Resurrection we
mean that, having passed through the gates of death, our
Saviour, Jesus Christ, returned to life on earth. But no
Christian holds that he came back to life in the same form
of existence that was His before His death. After His
resurrection He had a glorified body. The word "life,"
therefore, is applied to Christ in one sense before His death
and in another after His resurrection. The two meanings
are incommensurable ; one comes within the scope of our
experience, the other does not. How, then, can we say that
the word "life" in the second sense has any meaning for
pure reason?* "It is," says Le Roy, "a metaphor incon
vertible into definite ideas. We can only interpret it by
introducing elements which belong to human life as we
ordinarily experience it, and as Christ possessed it before
His body was glorified."
What distinguishes the Dogma of the Resurrection from
others is that instead of being expressed merely in symbolic
language, behind which would lie concealed a reality un
knowable and unthinkable by us, it purports to present a
fact that occurred in space and time, and that entered into
the drama of historical events at a given moment and mani
fested itself to the sight, touch and hearing of man. Must
we not, therefore, consider it as an historical event, the
reality of which has been historically demonstrated? "But,"
says Le Roy, "the Resurrection as a passage to a glorious
"The assumption throughout is that our knowledge is entirely
empirical, that we can only know what enters into our experience
namely : phenomena. This principle they take from Kant s Agnosti
cism.
Il6 DOGMA
life is unthinkable, because it does not come within the
range of experience." It should therefore be eliminated
from the domain of thought, because it was eliminated from
the domain of experience. In order that the Resurrection
could be an object of observation like all other facts of
experience, Christ should have resumed His former life by
the re-animation of His dead body, but, says Le Roy, "the
Resurrection, as an article of Catholic faith is different
from this. It means the entrance into glory and the transi
tion to the supernatural order of existence, so that the body
attributed to Christ after the Resurrection had nothing in
common with the bodies which constitute the world of our
experience. What then can we understand by the reality
of a glorified body that is to say, of a body withdrawn
from the system of space and time relations, which con
stitutes the very notion of physical reality ?"
Here it may be well to call attention to Monsieur Le
Roy s peculiar theory of the nature of body. He regards
it, not as an isolated portion of the world around us, a
reality existing independently of others, but as a center of
co-ordination having physical continuity with the whole uni
verse, so that the reality of a body is constituted by its bonds
with the aggregate of material things. From the scientific
standpoint he argues that if the Resurrection of Christ
were a space and time phenomenon, it would destroy the
very conditions of the existence of the material universe,
for since bodies have no reality except through the bonds or
ties that unite them to the whole, a break in their continuity
or uniformity, the hypothesis that Christ s glorified body
which had no space and time relation was identical with his
original body, would leave only the disjecta membra of a
world. The supernatural may indeed intervene in the world
of physical reality, but grace does not act in the bosom of
nature except by clothing itself in nature s own, and not in
glorified or supernatural forms.
Le Roy does not mean to deny the reality of the Resur
rection, but he relegates it to another and higher order than
the phenomenal order of facts occurring in space and time.
"We ought," he says, "to accept a Dogma on the word of
God, who has revealed it, and not because of its historical
evidence."
Modernists contend that the apparitions, even if we as
sume that they were not hallucinations pure and simple,
DOGMA 117
should be regarded as the effect of the spiritual manifesta
tion of Christ, giving evidence of His survival in glory, and
should not be taken as a resumption of His terrestrial life.
It is worthy of note that Christ appeared only to His dis
ciples and not to the general body of the Jews, from which
Le Roy seems to infer, influenced probably by Kenan s
theory, that it was the very anterior faith and love of the
apostles which objectivized the image of Christ already en
shrined in their imaginations and in their hearts. From the
discrepancies in the Gospel narratives of the Resurrection,
Le Roy concludes that the narratives are legendary and
imaginary in conformity with the habits of thought that
prevailed in their environment.
The risen Christ is not, therefore, an outer experience,
or rather He is only an object of religious experience. If
the Apostles vision of Him be called perception, the term
should be qualified so as to read "religious perception."
What is historically true is that the Apostles really believed
that Christ had returned to life after having visited Hades.
The reality, therefore, with which the New Testament deals
is psychological, but not extra-mental. The apparitions
should be regarded as an evidence of faith and not as an
evidence of facts.
Le Roy s criticism, therefore, comes to this : There ex
ists only one order of knowledge in the speculative sense,
while there are two orders of reality, which, so far as we
are concerned, are absolutely separated and incommensur
able the Phenomenal order, which, coming within the
range of our experience, is the object of our concepts and
our theories, and the Noumenal order, which, being wholly
foreign to our experience (note that Le Roy confounds the
Noumenal and the Supernatural orders), is aiso beyond the
reach of thought and, consequently, theoretically unknow
able. A Dogma, therefore, is utterly unknowable except
in the practical sense as conveying a moral precept.
Is Le Roy an Agnostic ? Against this charge he defends
himself strenuously. He maintains that there exists a nec
essary relation between Dogma and thought and that it is
at once a right and a duty not to rest satisfied with blind
faith. But what relation can there be between Dogmas and
thought, if the Dogmas are unknowable? To answer this
question he distinguishes the believer as a believer and the
believer as a philosopher. To this distinction corresponds
Il8 DOGMA
two aspects of thought equally possible, equally legitimate,
and even equally necessary. The one is essentially practical
and the other essentially speculative. This distinction runs
through the entire system of Le Roy. The believer should
not consider the Dogmatic formula as literally expressing
a reality, but as conveying what we should do, or how we
should comport ourselves, in dealing- with this reality. The
Dogma thus viewed, while remaining theoretically unknow
able inasmuch as it is transcendant reality, becomes prac
tically thinkable under the form of conduct which it com
mands. In this way, Dogma enters into our experience,
since we must live it, and the relations between the human
mind and religious truth, which appeared to be definitely
broken off, are restored. We escape Agnosticism without
relapsing into Intellectualism, which would create an invin
cible discord between Science and Dogma. According to
this interpretation, Dogma gives an orientation to all the
modes of our activity. Pragmatism takes the places of
Agnosticism and the Catholic is merely restricted by rules
of conduct and not by mere theories or ideas. "Dogmas,"
says Le Roy, are not merely enigmatic and nebulous formu
las which God promulgated in order to check the pride of
our spirit; they have a moral and practical sense. They
have a vital meaning, more or less accessible, to us accord
ing to the degree of spirituality which we have attained."
What, according to this view, are we to understand by the
Dogmas God is Personal; Jesus is Risen? Something ap
parently very simple and within the reach of everybody.
"God is Personal," conveys to us the practical command
In all your relations with God act as you would in your
relations with a human person. Similarly, "Jesus is Risen,"
means In your relations to Him shape your conduct as
you would have shaped it before His death, as you would
now shape it in dealing with one of your contemporaries.
Thus, we come to understand and appreciate Christianity
as a source and rule of life ; a discipline of moral and re
ligious action, instead of regarding it with the Intellectual-
ists as a system of speculative philosophy.
Yet Le Roy will not consent to be classified with those
who hold that Christianity is a mere ethical system, how
ever sublime. The positive Dogmas it contains have pri
marily a practical meaning, and instead of deriving this
from their theoretical interpretation he derives the latter
DOGMA 119
from the former. Dogma, he says, is a thought-action and
it is in action and in the measure in which we act that we
understand it. The most efficacious means of determining
its significance is to compel one s self to live it.
Faith in the Resurrection was a point of departure and
the principle of the greatest achievements which the human
soul has accomplished. It has accumulated during the
career of its marvelous sway an inexhaustible and abiding
profundity. The apparitions were mental constructions,
true hallucinations, if the expression be permissible. In the
order of religion, as well as in the scientific order, that
which establishes the value of a mental construction, that
which distinguishes it from pathological hallucination, even
though both be produced by the same mechanism and be
accompanied by the same nervous changes, is intensity of
life and the resistance which they offer to the corroding
influences of time. Pathological hallucination, on the other
hand, reveals a lowering of vitality and yields to the dis
solving influences which it successively encounters. Viewed
in this light, the apparitions of Jesus by the Apostles have
been an experience which faith itself established in the
depths of the subliminal or subconscious self and by which
it entered into a genuine relation with the mysterious living
reality corresponding to it. Themselves the product of a
previously existing faith, the apparitions re-acted on this
faith, strengthened, enriched and developed it, and some
thing corresponds to it in the Absolute Reality.
By anterior faith, M. Le Roy evidently understands a
sort of implicit faith, the object of which the apparitions
have been at once the means of finding, and in finding,
of making explicit and definite. They were a mode of
realizing the Resurrection relative and adapted to the capac
ity of the Apostles, to their degree of culture and to the pre
vailing conceptions of their time and environment. By
reason of the mental condition of the period, they could
not think the Resurrection except by means of a certain
theory of matter and life which to-day is obsolete. For
them the Resurrection meant the reanimation of a corpse,
and the reanimation implied apparitions. Thence they -de
duced that the corpse must have disappeared from the
place where it was laid, and if, in reality, on inspection of
the tomb, the body could not be discovered, we must recog-
I2O DOGMA
nize that its removal was providential in order that the
evidence of the tomb should corroborate the apparitions.
All this shows the contingent character of the apparitions.
They served provisionally as a means of expressing the
faith, and were destined to disappear like other forms of the
same kind, such as the Descent into Hell and the Ascension
conceived as implying locations in space. In these to-day
the most conservative see only the husks of a faith which
defines itself according to popular categories. But it is
not the images and concepts by which the Resurrection
expresses itself that are important. It is the underlying
spiritual reality which these images and concepts symbolize
and which, thus comprehended, gave to human life an
orientation that has transformed it. In this consists truly
and essentially the Dogma which claims our assent. There
fore, in all cases the Dogmatic formulae should be inter
preted in terms of practical or moral action, and not in
technical and speculative language. We must look, not for
theories, but for directions.
But this does not prevent us from having the right and
even the duty of constructing, as far as possible, theories
or interpretations of the reality corresponding to Dogma.
We cannot avoid doing so, since speculative thought is part
of our concrete life. M. Le Roy says that faith cannot be
radically separated even from theoretical thought, for it is
destined to expand into the Beatific Vision of which it is an
anticipation and germ, and not a heterogeneous form of
exchange for the object which it purchases. Moreover, it
is impossible for faith to keep clear of science and philos
ophy, because the human mind is one, and abhors dualism.
He even admits that Dogmas have a philosophic value and
that one can regard them as speculative propositions. We
must think and express our faith and for that purpose we
must have recourse to ideas and words. Faith, therefore,
must think itself in terms of all the systems of philosophy
with which it comes in contact, either to harmonize itself
with them or to detach itself from them. Otherwise, there
would be the necessity of maintaining a double conscious
ness. Thus arise theological systems, which must not be
confounded with the experiences of faith. They have the
same role as theories in science namely, to co-ordinate the
results attained and to suggest new lines of research. The
ology, therefore, is the philosophy of faith, which it aims
DOGMA 121
at assimilating by means of speculative thought. Dogma
is not merely an object for the contemplation of the mind
material offered to the mind statically ; it is dynamic, and
what we should consider in the images and in the concepts,
is this dynamic character, the movement which pervades
them and which carries the mind incessantly from an inad
equate symbol to a better one. And as a movement is only
thoroughly known in its progress, so to perceive the truth
of a Dogma, we must endeavor to live it. The Dogma
gives to the mind a speculative impulse in submitting to it
a problem to be solved. Theological theories always have
for their aim to clothe the data of faith with the forms of
reason.
M. Le Roy evidently means that at each epoch Dogma
should accommodate itself to the philosophy and science of
that period. It does not draw its true value from such
accommodation, but it should express itself theoretically in
terms of contemporary philosophy and science. The believer
is bound not to attack the essential element of faith, which
is, the attitude commanded by the Dogma. With this res
ervation, it is his right and even his duty to employ the
science and the philosophy of his time in adapting the
formula of the Dogma to the intellectual spirit of the age.
This intellectualization of Dogma at a given moment, or its
expression in terms of science and philosophy, is as variable
as a scientific theory or philosophical system. In this way,
M. Le Roy attempts to show us how one can give a "phil
osophically thinkable" idea of the Resurrection. In reject
ing the reanimation of Christ s corpse, it is only a certain
idea of the Resurrection and not its reality, he says, that he
rejects. He repudiates the mythical theory and also the
symbolical theory, which would make of the Resurrection
a mere symbol of immortality. Christ not only survives in
the memory of His followers and in the influence He exerts
on their lives, but He lives by His presence in our midst.
Between the Resurrection and the Eucharistic Presence,
there is a close connection. This Presence cannot be phe
nomenal that is, it does not belong to the sensible order.
But how can it be real and yet not phenomenal ? To answer
this question, Le Roy has recourse to a new theory of
matter. He is an Idealist. Matter, he holds, exists only
in the mind and relatively to it. He distinguishes between
pure matter, which is a need or exigency of the spirit, to
122 DOGMA
reduce itself to a mechanism and contract habits, and actual
matter, which has an explicit and concrete reality. Actual
matter is a product of the mind, of the group of mechanisms
which it has created and the system of habits which it has
contracted, as a necessary condition of its action. Never
theless this matter is "social" and hereditary. It is a bond
of the monads and the result of their collective action and,
far from being- something subjective to each individual, is
born in the midst of pre-existing matter, which truly limits
and conditions it. But matter, for the most part, has fallen
into unconsciousness and automatism. It is thus an ob
stacle to the liberty of the spirit, which by right should be
sovereign, and human progress consists in gradually freeing
the spirit from its trammels. This being so, we can easily
understand what death means, or the cessation of practical
activity and phenomenal disappearance. Death occurs when
we abandon the point in which we are in contact with and,
as it were, imbedded in matter. Then the mechanism which
composed the body having fallen off from the soul, dis
solves little by little into the common mass of nameless
things, whose only function is inertia. But the soul is not
thereby totally disembodied. It bears with it its own body,
which is pure matter, which means that the soul retains the
power of reconstituting mechanisms more or less similar
to those it has lost and, consequently, to play a new role
in the sensible world. Thus it is explained how it can after
wards return to life. For this it is sufficient that the pure
matter retained should realize itself, that its power should
pass to act in order that it may resume life and reappear
in the phenomenal order. This would be a resurrection in
its own flesh. The body is the same after as before because
it has as its principle the same germ. Everything takes
place as in ordinary vital Phenomena of assimilation and
elimination.
But this would be merely a natural resurrection ; a re
sumption of phenomenal life, and what we are endeavoring
to conceive is a supernatural resurrection, which implies the
assumption of a glorified body. The point of contact at
which the soul comes into relationship with the whole uni
verse is its body, which in a sense is the universe. If in
the natural state a living body detaches itself from universal
continuity, it is because through automatism and uncon
sciousness its practical power of direct action and reaction
DOGMA 123
is localized at the point in which its life remains conscious
and autonomous. For the most part it remains a mere
potentiality, which slumbers or acts habitually, blindly and
mechanically. But when the conscious subject conquers the
unconscious, when liberty triumphs over automatism, then
the appearances of limitation and disconnection vanish.
The body ceases to be externally visible as an object among
other objects. It exists in the fulness of its being, and that
which was before only slumbering potentiality has become
actuality and reality. There is no longer any frontier
marking the spot to which this potentiality is confined. It
is a center of perception and initiative everywhere ; it has
become a glorious body ; it has realized the perfect unfold
ing of its potentiality; it has the entire universe for the
scene of its immediate activity and lives no longer in me
chanical inertia and subliminal penumbra, but in light and
liberty.
Behold how the presence of the living Christ can be
sovereignly real without being apparent. It only ceases to
be visible because it has become supremely real, the Resur
rection thus conceived is an animation of the entire universe
by Christ, which necessarily implies a supernatural presence
a presence thnt is not included in the Phenomenal order,
A natural resurrection would have consisted in reproducing
certain mechanisms that is, in resuming the appearances
of limitation and disconnection, which render an ordinary
body perceptible as a distinct object of the Phenomenal
world, while the Resurrection of Christ has been a victory
over all that; a complete escape from automatism and un
consciousness, in order to act in the fulness of light and
liberty. By the solidarity which binds us and all nature to
Him, the Resurrection has become for us and for all nature
at once a pledge and a means of a similar triumph. In
order that this seed of glory should develop and fructify, we
have only to nourish our souls by participation more and
more in the life of Christ through faith, and the Sacra
ments, especially the Holy Eucharist. The Resurrection is
a permanent fact dominating time and space, indissolubly
bound to the Eucharist and the Church, and not a mere
transitory fact of a particular place and a particular moment.
Dogma understood in its practical sense is immediately
within the reach of everybody. It is not necessary to be
a scientist or a philosopher in order to assent to it. There
124 DOGMA
is no danger of humanity becoming thereby divided into
two castes, of which one would be charged with the duty
of elaborating ideas which the others could only slavishly
accept. Moreover, this view of Dogma leaves intact the
liberty of the spirit and its undeniable right to reject every
conception, which would impose itself from without. Re
course to authority, totally objectionable in the order of
thought, is permissible in the sphere of action. Liberty
having no place and no role in the steps of discursive
thought, authority could not effect that I should find an
argument, solid or weak, that such or such a notion should
convey a particular meaning to my mind. "I do not say
merely," says Le Roy, "that it is not right, but that the
process is radically impossible, for it is I who think and not
authority that thinks for me." But in the practical order
it is different. I am always free to take one attitude rather
than another, but where liberty intervenes, authority can
intervene. We can thus see, also, how the act of faith is
free, as it should be. It is precisely because the Dogma
commands an act and that its value verifies itself only in
action or in living the Dogma that faith is free. But one
sees, also, how the autonomy of the spirit is safeguarded,
since the Dogmas, in so far as they are made known, present
themselves as data for speculation ; as matter for theories to
be formed about, and not as a theory already formed. What
facts are to science, Dogmas are to theological speculation.
Autonomy of the spirit is in perfect accord with the prin
ciple of submission to fact, and the most scrupulous and
jealous autonomist cannot see any impediment to liberty of
research in the necessity of admitting that facts judge theo
ries^ That which was repugnant in the Intellectualist con
ception was that Dogmas imposed solutions ready made,
binding the spirit from without, whilst in the present hy
pothesis they only present problems upon which the mind
is called to exercise its activity freely. Thus understood,
they no longer hamper scientific or philosophical specula
tion, but they become themselves objects of speculation.
This speculation consists always in intellectualizing the
Dogma in terms of science and philosophy. It is variable
and perfectible. The authority of the Church has no right
to restrict it to this or that definite theory, but only to up
hold the immutable element of Dogma against the theories
which misunderstand or misrepresent it. The Church is the
DOGMA 125
guardian of the Deposit of Faith, and not of systems of
philosophy and theology. By its Dogmas, understood in
the true sense, it is not obstructive of the movement of
thought, but on the contrary stimulates it by furnishing it
with a new object. Has M. Le Roy truly removed the
reproach of heteronomy which modern philosophers have
made against religion? The contradictions in which his
theory abounds are too palpable to call for detailed exposure.
Its exposition carries with it its own refutation
KANT AND THE MODERNISTS.
The Modernists relying on Kant s subjective method,
which they call the Method of Immanence, hold that the
Christian religion is credible because it best corresponds to
the exigencies of our souls. Everything is explained by
saying that truth is not transcendant and is not measured
by its conformity with its object, but depends on man him
self and develops by adaptation to his various needs. Ac
cording to Kant, the great and necessary truths of Re
ligion appeal to the will, not to the intellect. All religion
springs from our need of the infinite. Kant admits neces
sary truths as such. The principles of mathematics he con
siders unchangeable because they formulate the laws of
space and time, which are subjective forms of our own
senses. Our Pure Reason also imposes laws on nature ; and
the external universe, considered as cosmos, or orderly and
organized whole, derives all its principles of organization
from the human mind. Science, therefore, as such, or the
general principles which we deduce from phenomena by
means of the principle of causality, is a collection of laws
imposed on the universe by our own minds, and their uni
versality and force cannot be questioned by the sceptic be
cause we cannot consistently with the constitution of our
intellects, think the universe otherwise. Material bodies
are a mere aggregate or chaos. Similarly the will imposes
on the intellect principles that are necessary for life; nec
essary, that is to regulate morality. They are free will, the
immortality of the soul, and the existence of God. Kant
also admits that religious faith may be accepted as an ideal
solace, but he reduces it to myths and imaginary symbols.
He recognizes nothing else in the Bible and in the Scrip
tural narrative of Jesus Christ Himself, except myths and
<\mbols. By the word immanent was formerly meant a
126
THE ORIGIN OF CHRISTIANITY
characteristic of vital actions which of their own nature are
not terminated in an external effect, but remain in the sub
ject himself, as his act and perfection. In the new school.
Immanence implies that from the subject is derived, either
in whole or for the most part, the determining reason of
the various acts of which his nature is capable, and this is
to be understood not merely of the order of knowledge,
"but of the order of reality ; and of the supernatural, as well
as of the natural order. Hence there is immanent in us,
not only the capacity to receive supernatural gifts, but also
the active power, corresponding to supernatural elevation,
to operate by means of them and even their determining
reason, which is a natural need or exigency. This concept
of Immanence implies Immanence of the higher forms and
natures in the inferior, whence follows the natural evolution
of one from the other. This philosophy of action and moral
Dogmatism is excellently refuted in a recent work by Rev.
G. Mattiussi, S. I.; II veleno kanziano; Nuova e antica
critica della ragione.
ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS CONCERNING THE ORIGIN
OF CHRISTIANITY.
^ Contrary to the Modernists views, we Catholics hold that
Christianity is not a subconscious and spontaneous evolution,
that it is not an emanation from the religious consciousness
of humanity, that it arises through a positive intervention of
the gratuitous and miraculous condescension of God. It is
constituted by the historical fact of the Incarnation. It is
essentially a supernatural gift; an interior gift of grace
which nourishes the Christian life; an external gift of the
teaching and precepts of Christ, which entrusted to the
Apostles, is communicated to us by the Church and its
Infallible Head. To the thesis of *"EFFERENCE," which
would have it arise from below, from the depths of human
nature and the bowels of humanity, we radically oppose the
thesis of "AFFERENCE," which affirms the specifically
supernatural character of the Dogmas and virtues of Cathol-
*The words efference and afference, by which the Modernists
contrast their system and Intellectualism, are borrowed from the
names of the efferent, outgiving or motor, and the afferent, in-carry
ing, or sensory nerves. Afference implies that Revelation comev
to us from without, from a transcendent source; efference, from an
immanent source.
MOTIYKS oi- < UKninii.ri Y 127
icisni and the gratuitousness of the entire Christian order.
Nor is it true that the human soul, even inspired by secret
impulses from God and actuated by grace from Heaven,
can arrive at a knowledge of Dogma and of the whole
supernatural order, for Revelation alone can teach us that
this order exists and what it is. We have an instinctive
and profound abhorrence for the methods of those who
try to establish harmony between philosophy and religion
by minimizing and compromising.
MOTIVES OF CREDIBILITY.
Innocent XI condemned the following proposition: "The
supernatural assent of Faith necessary for salvation is com
patible with merely probable knowledge of Revelation, nay
even with doubt whether God has spoken." Our faith must
be a Rationabile obsequinm or reasonable service. We must
have rational certainty of the fact of Revelation before we
can give the assent of faith that is, assent to a revealed
doctrine, based on the authority of God, who has revealed
it. The reasons which prove the fact of Revelation, or
that the proposition is really the word of God, are called
Motives of Credibility. The whole attitude of the mind in
an act of faith may be interpreted in the form of a syllo
gism : Whatever God says is true. But God has said that
the Church is infallible. Therefore, it is true that the Church
is infallible. The motive that makes us assent to the major
premise is the motive of faith ; the reason or reasons that
make us assent to the minor premise are Motives of Credi
bility ; they establish the fact of Revelation.
The Rationalists, among other things, deny that it is pos
sible to be certain of the fact of Revelation. The Modernists,
like some Protestants, substitute inward feelings, or inward
religious experience, for external signs or proofs of the fact
of Revelation. The true Catholic position is easily under
stood from the following definition of the Vatican Council :
"In order that the submission of our Faith might be in
accordance with reason, God hath willed to give us, together
with the internal assistance of the Holy Ghost, external
proofs of His Revelation namely, Divine facts and, above
all, miracles and prophecies, which, while they clearly mani
fest God s almighty power and infinite knowledge, are most
certain Divine signs of Revelation adapted to the under
standing of all men. Wherefore Moses, and all the Proph-
128 MOTIVES OF CREDIBILITY
ets, and especially Christ our Lord Himself, wrought and
uttered many and most manifest miracles and prophecies;
and touching the Apostles we read, "They going forth
preached the word everywhere, the Lord working withal,
and confirming the word with the signs that followed."
And again, it is written, "We have the more firm prophetical
word, whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that
shineth in a dark place." (2 Pet., i, 19.) But in order that
we may fulfill the duty of embracing the true Faith, and
of persevering therein constantly, God, by means of His
Only Begotten Son, hath instituted the Church and hath
endowed her with plain marks whereby she may be recog
nized by all men as the guardian and mistress of the re
vealed word. For to the Catholic Church alone belong all
the wonders which have been divinely arranged for the evi
dent credibility of the Christian Faith. Moreover, the
Church herself, by her wonderful propagation, exalted sanc
tity and unbounded fertility in all that is good, by her
Catholic unity and invincible stability, is both an enduring
motive of credibility and an unimpeachable testimony of her
Divine mission. Whence it is that like a standard set up
unto the nations (Isai. xi, 12) she calleth to her them that
have not yet believed, and maketh her children certain that
the Faith which they profess resteth on the surest founda
tion." (Sess. iii, chap. 3.)
The Catholic Church, therefore, recognizes an internal
factor of our assent to the fact of revelation namely, the
assistance of the Holy Ghost and also external signs,
namely, Divine facts, especially miracles and prophecies;
consequently, the Church has been invested by Christ with
plain notes or marks whereby she may be recognized by all
men as the guardian and mistress of Revelation. Catholics,
therefore, recognize the value of inner experiences in be
getting certainty of Revelation ; but they do not regard
these inner experiences as the sole, or even the most impor
tant factors in producing this certainty, as the Modernists
do; for these inner experiences are subjective that is, re
stricted to the person who feels them and liable to illusion,
"while the faith is proposed by public authority and exacts
public and universal obedience. It must, therefore, be sup
ported by public and plain signs of its Divine origin.
The following quotation from Scheeben s "Dogmatik,"
translated by Wilhelm and Scannell, is very instructive.
TRADITION 129
"Although in theory it would be conceivable that it was
only the first promulgators of the Faith who had their mis
sion attested by Divine signs, and that this fact should have
been handed down to us in the same way as any other his
torical event, nevertheless, as a matter of fact, and as might
be expected from the nature of Faith and Revelation, God
has ordained that the signs or criteria of Divine origin
should uninterruptedly accompany the preaching of His
doctrine. The fact of Revelation is thereby brought home
to us in a more lively, direct and effective manner. This
question is of the greatest importance at the present time,
when the Divine mission of even Christ Himself is the
object of so many attacks. When the Divine mission of
the Church was denied, and thereby the existence of a
continual, living testimony was rejected, Faith in the Divine
mission of Christ thenceforth rested upon merely historical
evidence and so became the prey of historical criticism.
Besides, without a continuous Divine approbation, Christ s
mission becomes such an isolated fact that its full signific
ance cannot be grasped. Some Catholic theologians, in their
endeavors to defend Christianity and the Church on purely
historical grounds, have not given enough prominence to
the constant signs of Divine approbation, which have ac
companied the Church s preaching in all ages. The Vatican
definition has therefore been most opportune. It is now of
Faith that the Church herself is "an enduring motive of
credibility and an unimpeachable testimony of her Divine
mission." Her wonderful propagation, in spite of the great
est moral and physical difficulties, not only in her early
years, but even at the present day ; her eminent sanctity, as
manifested in her Saints, combined with their miracles ; her
inexhaustible fertility in every sort of good work ; her unity
in Faith, discipline and worship ; her invincible constancy in
resisting the attacks of powerful enemies within and with
out for more than eighteen centuries : all these are manifest
signs that she is not the work of man, but the work of
God.
TRADITION.
The entire Church is the mystical Body of Christ com
pacted by God and directed and vivified by the Holy Spirit.
The Church is, therefore, a unique society. Its judgment
is the judgment of the Holy Spirit and the truth of the
TRADITION
testimony of its witnesses does not depend upon their num
ber, but upon the office which they hold in the Church and
the prerogatives which are attached to that office by Divine
right. Ecclesiastical Tradition, therefore,, has a divine and
a human element and differs from all other kinds of tradi
tion in the degree and character of the certainty that it
produces. But we should not forget that owing to the hu
man element there may be a break in the continuity and
universality of the tradition and a temporary or partial
eclipse of the truth. The great truths of Christianity have
always been expressly taught in the Church, considered as a
whole. Others of less fundamental character have been im
plicitly contained in those that were distinctly professed,
and by reflection and the direction of the Holy Spirit could
be easily deduced for universal acceptance. " This logical
or dialectical, evolution of Dogma is very different from
the vital evolution advocated by Modernists, who teach that
new Dogmatic formulas are not contained in the old, which
have grown obsolete, but are substituted for them in the
changing conditions of their environment, because new ones
became necessary as being better adapted to the vital need
of the believer. If a doctrine be defined by the Supreme
Magisterium of the Church, it becomes a part of the Univer
sal Ecclesiastical Tradition, but even then, the definition is
always based on the fact that the Tradition in question was
universal for a long time. The ordinary channels of Tradi
tion are
1. The entire Church, Head and members. Unanimity
of Faith may be gathered from professions of Faith uni
versally accepted, from catechisms in general use, and from
the general practice of the Church in her liturgy, discipline
or morals, so far as these imply doctrinal truths. It is an
old axiom: "Legem credendi statuat lex orandi."
2. The consent of the faithful namely, the distinct, uni
versal and constant profession of a doctrine by the whole
body of the simple Faithful. Thus before the definition of
the Immaculate Conception, the profession and practice of
the Faithful were appealed to in favor of it.
The late Dr. Murray, of Maynooth College, in his famous
treatise, De Ecclesia, has the following passage : "As the
blood flows from the heart to the body through the arteries;
as the vital sap insinuates itself into the whole tree, into
TRADITION I3 1
each bough and leaf and fibre ; as water descends through
a thousand channels from the mountain-top to the plain ; so
is Christ s pure and life-giving doctrine diffused, flowing
into the whole body through a thousand organs from the
Ecclesia Docens."
3. The testimony of all the Bishops, because the Episco
pate is the chief organ of infallibility in the Church.
4. The perfect representative of Tradition, the Apostolic
See. Moreover, as a consequence of the connection between
the Head of the Church and the Roman See there exists in
the local Roman Church, apart from the authoritative deci
sions of the Pope, a certain actual and normal testimony,
which must be considered as an expression of the habitual
teaching of the Holy See. The faith professed in the Ro
man Church is the result of the constant teachings of the
Popes, accepted by the laity and taught by the clergy, espe
cially by the College of Cardinals who take part in the
general government of the Church.
The external channels are:
1. The testimony of the Fathers. In the early days of
the Church, when the teaching functions were almost ex
clusively exercised by the Bishops, the extraordinary rep
resentatives of Apostolical Tradition were usually eminent
members of the Episcopate. They were called Fathers of
the Church because living as they did in the infancy of the
Church, when extraordinary means were needed for its
preservation, they received a more abundant outpouring of
the gifts of the Holy Ghost and thus their doctrine repre
sents His teaching in an eminent degree.
2. Doctors of the Church, distinguished for human learn
ing and industry, which they applied to the development
and fuller comprehension of doctrine rather than to the
fixing of its substance.
Documentary Tradition is the expression of the oral and
living Tradition and the Holy Ghost assists in the produc
tion and preservation of such documents so that they may
present a more or less perfect representation of previous
Tradition.
The writings of the Fathers constitute a written Tradi
tion, equal in authority to the subsequent oral Tradition and
are an objective rule of faith running side by side with oral
Tradition, but their authority is dependent on the Church.
132 TRADITION
Official documents comprise decisions of the Popes and
Councils, Liturgical documents and monuments, such as
Liturgies, Sacramentaries, Ordines Romani, pictures, sym
bols, inscriptions, vases, etc., connected with public worship.
All these participate, more or less, in the supernatural
character of the living Tradition, of which they are the
emanation and exponents. The Roman Catacombs have
acquired great importance as monuments of the earliest
Tradition. The Tradition of a truth being once established,
the Catholic has no further interest in the investigation of
its continuity, except for the purpose of science and apolo
getics, because he believes in the Divine authority of Tra
dition, and in dealing with Protestants we may proceed in
two ways, either to demonstrate the antiquity of the doctrine
or prove to them the Catholic principles of Tradition.
With certain limitations the ordinary preaching of the
Gospel in parish churches is an important channel of tradi
tion. The fact that the pastor is left in undisturbed posses
sion of his office is an indication that he is in doctrinal
communion with his bishop, and by an apari argument, the
bishop is in communion with the Holy Father the Vicar of
Christ, who is in communion with the Holy Spirit of Truth.
POPULAR INTERPRETATION OF THE ENCYCLICAL 133
POPULAR INTERPRETATION OF
THE ENCYCLICAL
For the sake of the general reader we shall attempt to
explain in the language of the catechism the reasons that
irresistibly impelled the Holy Father to condemn modern
ism. Catholics believe that Jesus Christ was both God
and Man ; that as God He existed from all eternity, equal
to the Father in splendor and power; that He assumed
human nature in the womb of Mary; that He wrought
many stupendous miracles; that having been crucified He
arose again on Easter Sunday and carried his full humanity
after His ascension into the presence of the Eternal Father.
The modernists distinguish between the Christ of history
and the Christ of faith. The Christ who really lived and
died they say was a mere man, the greatest man who ever
lived indeed, but with all the limitations of human nature.
His miracles, His Resurrection and Ascension never really
occurred, but were credited to Him by enthusiastic disciples
after His death. Thus the modernists reject the Divinity
of Christ, which is the corner-stone of the Christian re
ligion.
Catholics believe that all the Sacraments were instituted
by Christ Himself. From God alone could they derive their
efficacy. No creature could take bread and wine and con
vert them into the body and blood, soul and Divinity of
Jesus Christ. The modernists, on the contrary, hold that
the Sacraments were originated by Christ s disciples. They
nevertheless, in words, maintain that Christ instituted them,
because they say this is an application of their principle of
permanence Christ lives on in His disciples so that their
acts may be attributed to Him. Their theory resembles, it
seems to us, the positivist idea of the moral immortality of
man. A good action influences others to imitate it ; the
actions of these likewise affect the conduct of others, just
as a stone dropped into a lake generates wavelets which
excite others, until ripple after ripple rises on the surface,
the whole body of water being ultimately stirred, however
feebly. As a man s life may thus be said to be perpetuated
in the surviving influence of his conduct, so the life of
Christ is permanent in the lives of His disciples and adher-
134 POPULAR INTERPRETATION OF THE ENCYCLICAL
ents. This interpretation is merely a base attempt to throw
| dust in the eyes of Catholics. What men do is men s work,
not the personal act of Christ. - But the Catholic doctrine
is that Christ in His own person instituted the seven Sac
raments and by His Divine power constituted them infal
lible means of grace.
The Church was founded by Christ s own personal Act.
He gave it its constitution, invested it with plenary author
ity, and solemnly commanded all men to enter its fold. But
the _ modernists teach that Christians themselves, after
Christ s death, voluntarily organized the Church to meet
urgent needs of the hour. Just as Jean Jacques Rousseau
pictures the _ state springing into existence through a num
ber of individuals pooling their wills and rights into a col
lectivity, so do these men represent the Church as originat
ing in a voluntary compact entered into by the early Chris
tians for the purpose of strengthening and defending their
common religious interests. Ecclesiastical authority dis
ciplinary, dogmatic and liturgical is therefore derived
from the people and answerable to them. The principles
from which these doctrines spring, were, as we are re
minded in the Encyclical solemnly condemned by Pius VI.
in the Bull Auctorem Fidel.
At various stages in the history of Christianity, when
heretics arose to deny some revealed doctrine, the Church
solemnly proclaimed the truth and demanded that her chil
dren should accept it. Thus the Council of Nice defined
that Christ is God, the Council of Ephesus that Mary is the
Mother of God, the Vatican Council that the Pope is infal
lible. All these doctrinal decrees are unchangeable. But
the^ modernists treat them very lightly. Dogmas, they
maintain, are merely symbols, useful in certain emergencies,
but inevitably destined to become obsolete or ill adapted to
the religious needs of a more advanced progress. Thus the
time may arrive according to their ideas when it will be
inadvisable to believe in the Divinity of Christ or to accord
to His Blessed Mother the honors to which she is entitled
by reason of her great prerogative which the Council of
Ephesus vindicated. The Encyclical emphatically repudi
ates this perverted view of dogma, and quotes the following
constitution of the Vatican Council to show that it was al
ready expressly condemned: "The doctrine of the faith
POPULAR INTERPRETATION OF THE ENCYCLICAL 135
which God has revealed has not been proposed to human
intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philoso
phical 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 dogma 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."
Catholics hold that the Bible is different from all other
books, because all its parts were written under the influence
and direction of the Holy Spirit, so that it is literally, and
not merely figuratively, the Word of God. Modernists, on
the contrary, contend that it only embodies the religious ex
periences of its human authors. Every person has a similar
religious experience or sense of the Divine, though not in
the same degree. Consequently, the modernists reject the
divine authorship of the Scriptures in the true sense of the
word. The Bible was written by men, under a natural im
pulse, their mental faculties receiving no stimulus or guid
ance from any supernatural source. Milton s "Paradise
Lost" or Dante s "Inferno" would possess as clear a claim
as the Scriptures to be considered inspired according to the
theory of the modernists.
The modernists are agnostics ; that is, they hold that we
cannot know anything except appearances, or the impres
sions made on our senses. Consequently, they deny that we
can acquire any knowledge properly so-called of God. The
mind is everlastingly imprisoned within the circle of its
own states, feelings and impressions. Objects that lie out
side of us our minds cannot reach. All our ideas of a Cre
ator, Preserver, Governor of Man and the Universe are
declared to be empty illusions so far as knowledge is con
cerned. This principle the modernists evidently borrowed
from the philosophical system of Kant. The Encyclical re
minds us that the Vatican Council has defined: "If any
one says that the one true God, our Creator and Lord can
not be known with certainty in the natural light of human
reason by means of the things that are made, let him be an
athema," and also "If anyone says that it is not possible or
not expedient that man be taught, through the medium of
divine revelation about God and the worship to be paid
Him, let him be anathema."
Cathclic Church, Pope Pius X
128 *
Pascendi dominici gregis. ,J3
