Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

† Traditional Catholic Devotion: Dominica VI. Post Pentecosten ~ Sixth Sunday after Pentecost †
Robert Drobot | Anno Dómini 8 July 2012 | Most Holy Trinity

Posted on 07/09/2012 3:23:01 AM PDT by Robert Drobot

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus
( Outside the Church there is no salvation )

"Sicut palmes non potest ferre fructum a semitipso nisi manserit in vite:
sic nec vos, nisi in Me maseritis"
( "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine,
so neither can you, unless you abide in Me" )

- Blessed Apostle Saint John 15:4

† Traditional True Mass Propers : Dominica VI. Post Pentecosten ~ Sixth Sunday after Pentecost †

Anno Dómini 8 July 2012

† Statio ad S. Petrum ~ Station at Saint Peter's †

Commemorating

The Feast of

† Saint Elizabeth, Queen of Portugal †

Color: Veridis/Green Vestments Semi-Double Feast of the First Class Observance

Dóminus fortitúdo plebis suæ, et protéctor salutárium Christi sui est: salvum fac pópulum tuum....
( "....The Lord is the strength of His people, and the protector of the salvation of His anointed...." )

"...."Quot panes habétis?"...."Septem." .....et sustulérunt quod superáverat de fragméntis, septem sportas. Erant autem qui manducavérunt, quasi quátuor míllia et dimísit eos"
( ".... "How many loaves have ye?"...."Seven.".....and they took up that which was left of the fragments, seven baskets: and they that had eaten, were about four thousand: and He sent them away...." )

"All whatsoever you do in word or work, do all in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
giving thanks to God the Father through Jesus Christ our Lord"--- Blessed Apostle Saint Paul

"Let it not be as a murderer or a thief, a malefactor or a coveter of other men's goods that any of you suffer; but if it is for the name of Christian, let him be not ashamed, but glorify God in that name." --- Blessed Apostle Saint Peter ( First Epistle 4:15-16 )

The Miracle of Transubstantiation, in the presence of, and for, the many,
everywhere in the world,
wherever Holy Mass is celebrated.

Praise be the grace and glory of the Most Holy Trinity,
through our Holy Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

Therefore God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. ~~ Philippians 2:5-11

".... be filled with the knowledge of the will of God...."

""The Holy Mass is a prayer itself, even the highest prayer that exists. It is the Sacrifice dedicated by our Redeemer at the Cross, and repeated every day on the Altar. If you wish to hear the Mass as it should be heard, you must follow with eye, heart, and mouth all that happens at the Altar.

""Further, you must pray with the priest the holy words said by him in the Name of Christ and which Christ says by him. You have to associate your heart with the holy feelings which are contained in these words and in this manner you ought to follow all that happens on the Altar. When acting in this way, you have prayed Holy Mass."

~~ Pope Saint Pius X




TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Worship
KEYWORDS: consecration; eucharist; supplication; transubstantiation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
The Holy Family


"The Holy Family with the infant Saint John the Baptist ( the Doni tondo )" by Michelangelo c.1506, Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence

Parent's Prayer

Jesus Christ, Son of God, Son of Man, and Son of Mary, I thank you for the gift of life you have entrusted to my care. Help me be a parent both tender and wise, both loving and forgiving.

Mary, Holy Mother of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ Christ, and our Motherly Queen of Heaven, nourish our family with your heavenly grace. Help us to remain faithful to The Most Holy Trinity, in all our sorrows and joys.

Joseph, Earthly father to our Lord God, guardian and spouse of Mary, keep our family safe from harm. Help us in all times of discouragement or anxiety.

Holy Family of Nazareth, help our family to walk in your footsteps. May we be peace-loving and peace-giving.
Amen.


1 posted on 07/09/2012 3:23:11 AM PDT by Robert Drobot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

THE MONTH OF JULY IS DEDICATED TO

THE MOST PRECIOUS BLOOD OF
OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR CHRIST JESUS

The month of July (Overview - Calendar) is dedicated to the Precious Blood. The feast of the Precious Blood of our Lord was instituted in 1849 by Pius IX, but the devotion is as old as Christianity. The early Fathers say that the Church was born from the pierced side of Christ, and that the sacraments were brought forth through His Blood.

The Precious Blood which we worship is the Blood which the Savior shed for us on Calvary and reassumed at His glorious Resurrection; it is the Blood which courses through the veins of His risen, glorified, living body at the right hand of God the Father in heaven; it is the Blood made present on our altars by the words of Consecration; it is the Blood which merited sanctifying grace for us and through it washes and beautifies our soul and inaugurates the beginning of eternal life in it."

The Old Testament

Cain and Abel are making an offering. Abel's sacrifice is pleasing to God, Cain's is not. This gives rise to the sin of hatred, and fratricide is its resolution. The thirsting earth soaks up Abel's blood as it shouts to heaven for vengeance. This shouting prefigured the scene on Calvary, where Christ's Blood cried to heaven for the redemption of mankind.

Millenia pass, and now we see Israel oppressed by Egypt. God commands the people to kill a lamb and to sprinkle the doorposts with its blood; houses thus besprinkled are spared by the messenger of death. But where the doors are not reddened with the blood of the lamb, all male firstborn from king to slave die. This blood on the doorposts was a type of the Blood of Christ. Can the blood of a lamb save a man? No, but as a figure of the Redeemer's Blood it certainly does. For when the Destroyer sees the thresholds of a human heart marked with Christ's sacred Blood, he must pass by. And another soul is saved.

In a vision the prophet Isaias saw a man treading out grapes (in the Orient, trampling upon grapes in the wine-press was the usual means of extracting the juice). The prophet asked the man: "Why are your garments so red? "The wine-press I have trodden alone," he answers, "because from the nations there is no one with me." The trodder of the wine-press is Christ, His garments crimsoned by the Blood of redemption.

Excerpted from The Church's Year of Grace, Pius Parsch

The New Testament

The Church reminds us of the first drops of blood that flowed for our redemption on the day when Jesus was circumcised.

It is night on Mount Olivet, and the moon is shining. We see the holy face crimsoned with blood during the agony in the garden.

Unhappy, despairing Judas casts the blood-money down in the temple. "I have betrayed innocent blood!"

In the scourging chamber we see the Lord in deepest humiliation; under raw strokes the divine Blood spurts out over the floor. Christ is led before Pilate. Pilate shows the blood-covered Body to the crowds: Ecce homo! We go through Jerusalem's streets following the bloody footsteps to Golgotha. Down the beams of the Cross blood trickles. A soldier opens His sacred side.

Water and Blood.

Excerpted from The Church's Year of Grace, Pius Parsch

Symbols of the Precious Blood

Adam is sleeping an ecstatic sleep. God opens his side, removes a rib and forms Eve, the mother of all the living. But our view transcends this action and in spirit we behold the second, the divine Adam, Christ. He is sleeping the sleep of death. From His opened side blood and water flow, symbols of baptism and the Eucharist, symbols of the second Eve, the Church, the Mother of all the living. Through blood and water Christ willed to redeem God's many children and to lead them to an eternal home.

At Jerusalem a service in Yahweh's honor is taking place on the Day of Atonement. The high priest is making his annual entrance into the holy of holies to sprinkle the blood of bucks and bulls upon the covenant in expiation for the sins of the people. The Church shows us the higher meaning of this rite. Our divine High Priest Christ on the first Good Friday entered that Holy of Holies which is not made with hands nor sprinkled with the blood of bucks and bulls; there He effects, once and for all, with His own Blood man's eternal redemption.

A finale. Holy Church transports us to the end. The heavenly liturgy is in progress. Upon the altar is the Lamb, slain yet alive, crimsoned by His own Blood. Round about stand the countless army of the redeemed in garments washed white in the Blood of the Lamb. Hosts of the blessed are singing the new canticle of redemption: "You have redeemed us out of every tribe and tongue and nation by Your Blood."

Now from vision to present reality. How fortunate we are to have divine Blood so near to us, to offer it to the heavenly Father for the sins of the whole world!

Excerpted from The Church's Year of Grace, Pius Parsch

Devotion to the Precious Blood

Devotion to the Precious Blood is not a spiritual option, it is a spiritual obligation, and that not only for priests, but for every follower of Christ. I really believe that one of the symptoms of modern society (and I would even include, sadly, modern Catholic society) one of the symptoms of a growing, gnawing secularism is the lessening and the weakening of devotion to the Precious Blood. Devotion, as we know, is a composite of three elements: It is first- veneration, it is secondly- invocation, and it is thirdly- imitation. In other words, devotion to the Precious Blood of Christ, the Lamb of God who was slain, is first of all to be veneration on our part, which is a composite of knowledge, love and adoration. We are to study to come to a deeper understanding of what those two casual words, Precious Blood, really mean.

I found this passage in the oldest document, outside of sacred scripture, from the first century of the Christian era – to be exact, from Pope St. Clement I, dated about A.D. 96. Says Pope Clement: "Let us fix our gaze on the Blood of Christ and realize how truly precious It is, seeing that it was poured out for our salvation and brought the grace of conversion to the whole world."

To understand the meaning of the Precious Blood we must get some comprehension of the gravity of sin, of the awfulness of offending God, because it required the Blood of the Son of God to forgive that sin. We are living in an age in which to sin has become fashionable.

This veneration of the Precious Blood, which is the first element in our devotion to the Precious Blood means that we have a deep sensitivity to the awfulness of sin. Sin must be terrible. It must be awful. It must be the most dreadful thing in the universe. Why? Because it cost the living God in human form the shedding of His Blood.

Lord Jesus, You became Man in order by your Passion and Death and the draining of your Blood on the Cross, might prove to us how much You, our God, love us. Protect us, dear Jesus, from ever running away from the sight of blood. Strengthen our weak human wills so that we will not only not run away from the cross, but welcome every opportunity to shed our blood in spirit in union with your Precious Blood, so that, dying to ourselves in time we might live with You in Eternity. Amen.

Excerpted from The Precious Blood of Christ, Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

The month of July is dedicated to the Precious Blood of our Redeemer. As we adore His Most Sacred Heart, so we also adore His Most Precious Blood.

The Blood of Christ Jesus is the fountain of our salvation. Each drop that flowed from the wounds of the Savior is a pledge of a repentant man’s salvation. Saint John Chrysostom calls the Precious Blood “the savior of souls”; Saint Thomas Aquinas, “the key to heaven’s treasures”; Saint Ambrose, “pure gold of ineffable worth”; Blessed Apostle Saint Mary Magdalene de Pazzi, “a magnet of souls and pledge of eternal life”. The sins of mankind, in their number, in their offense to the Supreme Being, in the effects on transgressors, are immense; yet, the Precious Blood of Jesus is not frightened by numbers, it has in Itself the power to forgive sin.

The Precious Blood is a cleansing bath. Unlike all other blood, which stains, the Blood of Jesus offers redemption; an opportunity to wash away the stain of worldly sin. According to the words of Blessed Apostle Saint John, in the Apocalypse, the Angels wonder, and the question is asked: “These that are clothed in white robes, who are they?” The Lord answers: “These are they that have washed their robes, and have made them white in the Blood of the Lamb.” For no other reason did the Precious Blood flow but to gain for the souls of men the beautiful dress of innocence, and , once regained through humility and the Sacred Sacrament of Penance.

Would that men on earth honored the Precious Blood in the manner in which they who are in heaven give praise and thanksgiving! They proclaim that without His Sacrifice, they would have remained slaves of Satan and outcasts from the eternal mansions of God. Let us profess that we owe to the Sacred Blood of Jesus all that we have in this life, and that through His Most Precious Blood we come to know His love and forgiveness!

Source: Heavenly Friends, by Rosalie Marie Levy ( Saint Paul Editions: Boston, 1984)

PROMISES OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST

To Those Who Devotedly Pray the Chaplet of the Precious Blood

I promise to protect any person who devoutly prays this Chaplet against evil attacks.
I will guard his five senses.
I will protect him from sudden death.
Twelve hours before his death, he will drink
My Precious Blood and eat My Body.
Twenty-four hours before his death, I will show him My five wounds that he may feel a deep contrition for all his sins and have a perfect knowledge of them.
Any person who makes a novena with it will get their intentions. His prayer will be answered.
I will perform many wonderful miracles through it.
Through it, I will destroy many secret societies and set free many souls in bondage, by My mercy.
Through it, I will save many souls from Purgatory.
I will teach him My way, he who honors My Precious Blood through this Chaplet.
I will have mercy on them who have mercy on My Precious Wounds and Blood.
Whoever teaches this prayer to another person will have an indulgence of four years.

To Those Who Devotedly Pray the Consolation and Adoration Prayers

My children, I promise to protect anyone who devotedly consoles and adores Me with this prayer against evil attacks. He will not die a sudden death. He will not be burned by fire.
My children, I promise to protect anyone who devotedly consoles and adores Me against the attacks of evil spirits.
Any soldier who prays this prayer before entering a battlefield will not be defeated. No bullet will have any effect on him.
If this prayer is said to a woman in labor, she will have lesser pains and any woman who devotedly says these prayers will deliver safely.
Put this prayer on the head of any child disturbed by evil spirits, My Cherubim will protect him.
I promise to protect any family from lightning and thunder effects, and any house where this prayer is will be protected against storms.
If this prayer is said to the dying before his death, I promise that his soul will not be lost.
Any sinner who consoles and adores Me through this prayer will obtain conversion.
I promise to protect them with My Precious Blood and hide them in My Holy Wounds all who console and adore Me. Poison will have no effect on them. I will guard their five senses.
I promise to baptize aborted children who are killed daily in the world, and put a deep contrition on the hearts of their parents through the power of My Precious Blood.
All who devotedly console and adore Me with this prayer until death will join the heavenly Armies and Choirs. I will give them the Morning Star.

To Those Who Hear or Pray the Anguished Appeals

Children, whenever the Reparation Prayer is said with love, I promise to convert the twelve most hardened sinners in the world.
I will allow my Precious Blood to flow into every soul that hears this prayer said. Their love for Me will grow.
I will forgive the sins of a nation that turns back to Me through this prayer. They will not suffer the weight of the curses due to their sins.

For All Those Who Devoutly Observe the Gethsemane Hours

All who remain in Gethsemane with Me will receive a special grace from Me to withstand hard trials. I promise to sustain them with a special grace of faith and love.
During their hour of trials, I will console them, because they console me, now that I am in agony.
Those who are faithful to this hour will have nothing to fear from the antichrist.

On the Crown of Thorns

I will heal the wounds of their hearts, those who adore My Sacred Head through this Crown.
I will console those who console Me through this Crown.
I will open the ocean of the Divine Mercy on those who adore the wounds of My Sacred Head through this Crown.
All who adore the Most Precious Blood from My Sacred Head through this Crown will receive the grace of Divine Wisdom.
I will guard their five senses.
When you touch this Crown with love, I will allow a drop of My Blood to fall on your head.
I will renew the love of a repented sinner who can mercifully adore My Sacred Head with this Crown.
There is always a sprinkle of My Most Precious Blood wherever this thorn is, I am not far; I am near.
I will crown his head with a victorious crown, anyone who adores the Sacred Wounds and Blood of My Sacred Head through this Crown.
I promise to show them My Sacred Head one day before they die, all who love their crown and adore My Sacred Head through it, so as to have perfect knowledge of their sins and repent.
On 15 September 2001, Our Lady asked her Son Jesus to bless the Crown of Thorns with healing power.

To Those Who Devotedly Venerate The Agonizing Crucifix

To prepare you for the battle, I give you My Agonizing Crucifix. I promise to protect anyone who has this Crucifix against the evil forces.
Through this Crucifix, I will deliver many from captivity.
Whenever you raise this Crucifix against evil power, I will open heaven and let My Precious Blood flow to subdue the evil power.
I will let My Precious Blood flow from all.
My Sacred Wounds and cover all who venerate My Wounds and Blood through this Crucifix.
I promise to protect any house where this.
Crucifix is against any destructive power in the hour of darkness.
I promise to perform numerous miracles through this Crucifix.
I will break their hearts of stone and pour My love on them that venerate My Agonizing Crucifix.
I promise also to draw straying souls closer to Myself through this Crucifix.
Children, in the days of the evil one you will be able to go freely without any harm through this Crucifix.
Finally, Our Lord emphasized; "Children, through this Cross I will conquer. This Cross will soon be a victorious Cross."

NIHIL OBSTAT: Rev. Fr. Stephen Obiukwu, Censor Deputatus, Archdiocese of Onitsha, Nigeria.

IMPRIMATUR: His Excellency Most Rev. Ayo-Maria Atoyebi, O.P., Bishop of Ilorin Diocese, Ilorin, Nigeria.

Chaplet of the Most Precious Blood

Hymn
Most Precious Blood of Jesus Christ
Most Precious Blood of Jesus Christ
Most Precious Blood of Jesus Christ
Most Precious Blood of Jesus Christ
Most Precious Blood, save the world.

Invocation of the Holy Spirit
Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Your faithful and kindle in them the fire of Your love.
L: Send forth Your Spirit and they shall be created.
R: And You shall renew the face of the earth.

Let us Pray
O God, Who did teach the hearts of the faithful by the light of the Holy Spirit, grant us by the same Spirit to be truly wise and ever rejoice in His consolations, through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

May the Precious Blood that pours out from the Sacred Head of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Temple of Divine Wisdom, Tabernacle of Divine Knowledge and Sunshine of heaven and earth, cover us now and forever. Amen.

CONSECRATION TO THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST

Conscious, merciful Savior, of my nothingness and of Thy sublimity, I cast myself at Thy feet and thank Thee for the many proofs of Thy grace shown unto me, Thy ungrateful creature. I thank Thee especially for delivering me by Thy Precious Blood from the destructive power of Satan. In the presence of my dear Mother Mary, my guardian angel, my patron saint, and of the whole company of heaven, I dedicate myself voluntarily with a sincere heart, O dearest Jesus, to Thy Precious Blood, by which Thou hast redeemed the world from sin, death and hell. I promise Thee, with the help of Thy grace and to the utmost of my strength to stir up and foster devotion to Thy Precious Blood, the price of our redemption, so that Thy adorable Blood may be honored and glorified by all. In this way, I wish to make reparation for my disloyalty towards Thy Precious Blood of love, and to make satisfaction to Thee for the many profanations which men commit against that precious price of their salvation. O would that my own sins, my coldness, and all the acts of disrespect I have ever committed against Thee, O Holy Precious Blood, could be undone. Behold, O dearest Jesus, I offer to Thee the love, honor and adoration, which Thy most Holy Mother, Thy faithful disciples and all the saints have offered to Thy Precious Blood. I ask Thee to forget my earlier faithlessness and coldness, and to forgive all who offend Thee. Sprinkle me, O Divine Savior, and all men with Thy Precious Blood, so that we, O Crucified Love, may love Thee from now on with all our hearts, and worthily honor the price of our salvation. Amen.


2 posted on 07/09/2012 3:32:35 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


"If you live not in the body which is Christ, you are none of His. Whose, then, are you? You have been cut off and will wither, and like the branch pruned from the vine, you will burn in the fire - an end which may God's goodness keep far from you. So little does the Roman Church stand alone, as you think, that in the whole world any nation that in its pride dissents from her is in no way a church, but a council of heretics, a conventicle of schismatics, and a synagogue of Satan." [ Pope Saint Leo IX ]

"To use the words of the fathers of Trent, it is certain that the Church 'was instructed by Jesus Christ Christ and His Apostles and that all truth was daily taught it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.' Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain 'restoration and regeneration' for her as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune. Indeed these authors of novelties consider that a 'foundation may be laid of a new human institution,' and what Cyprian detested may come to pass, that what was a divine thing 'may become a human church.'" [Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.]

"Blind they are ...they pervert the eternal concepts of truth ...they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty ...despising holy and Apostolic Traditions they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church." [ Pope Gregory XVI, Singular Nos, June 25, 1834. ]


3 posted on 07/09/2012 3:34:31 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]



Litany of the Most Precious
Blood of Jesus

Lord, have mercy on us. Christ, have mercy on us.

Lord, have mercy on us. Christ, hear us. Christ, graciously hear us.

God the Father of Heaven, Have mercy on us.

God the Son, Redeemer of the world, Have mercy on us.

God the Holy Spirit, Have mercy on us.

Holy Trinity, One God, Have mercy on us.

Blood of Christ, only-begotten Son of the Eternal Father, Save us.

Blood of Christ, Incarnate Word of God, Save us.

Blood of Christ, of the New and Eternal Testament, Save us.

Blood of Christ, falling upon the earth in the Agony, Save us.

Blood of Christ, shed profusely in the Scourging, Save us.

Blood of Christ, flowing forth in the Crowning with Thorns, Save us.

Blood of Christ, poured out on the Cross, Save us.

Blood of Christ, Price of our salvation, Save us.

Blood of Christ, without which there is no forgiveness, Save us.

Blood of Christ, Eucharistic drink and refreshment of souls, Save us.

Blood of Christ, river of mercy, Save us.

Blood of Christ, Victor over demons, Save us.

Blood of Christ, Courage of martyrs, Save us.

Blood of Christ, Strength of confessors, Save us.

Blood of Christ, bringing forth virgins, Save us.

Blood of Christ, Help of those in peril, Save us.

Blood of Christ, Relief of the burdened, Save us.

Blood of Christ, Solace in sorrow, Save us.

Blood of Christ, Hope of the penitent, Save us.

Blood of Christ, Consolation of the dying, Save us.

Blood of Christ, Peace and Tenderness of hearts, Save us.

Blood of Christ, Pledge of Eternal Life, Save us.

Blood of Christ, freeing souls from Purgatory, Save us.

Blood of Christ, most worthy of all glory and honor, Save us.

Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Spare us, O Lord.

Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Graciously hear us, O Lord.

Lamb of God, Who takest away the sins of the world, Have mercy on us.

Thou hast redeemed us, O Lord, in Thy Blood, And made of us a kingdom for our God.

Let Us Pray:

Almighty and Eternal God, Thou hast appointed Thine only-begotten Son the Redeemer of the world, and willed to be appeased by His Blood. Grant, we beseech Thee, that we may worthily adore This Sacrifice for our salvation, and through Its Power be safeguarded from the evils of this present life, so that we may rejoice in its fruits forever in Heaven. Through the will of the Most Holy Trinity. Amen.

Source: Treasury of Novenas, Father Lawrence G. Lovesick



4 posted on 07/09/2012 3:35:47 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

THE HOLY NAME OF JESUS

"God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the Name which is above every name,
that at the Name of Jesus
every knee should bow in heaven, and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father"
~~ Philippians 2:9-10

I C X C

Every Catholic should love and have great devotion to the Most Holy Name of JESUS, for this is the Name of our Divine Savior. More than that, this Name is our very Salvation: "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" ~~ Acts 4:12

Yes, this is the teaching of Holy Mother Church. Contrary to popular ( anti-Catholic ) opinion, we do believe that our Divine Lord Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer. We cannot be saved apart from Christ by calling upon the name of Mary or any saint ( although we certainly love them as our family in Christ ). Our salvation is in the Name of Jesus Christ, Who died for our sins and rose from the dead to give us a share in His divine Life! Praised be His Holy Name!

This is why the Church has long promoted devotion to the Most Holy Name of JESUS, and encourages her children to pray that Name often, invoking our God and Savior with His Name Above All Names.

I C X C

Monograms of the Holy Name Explained

IHCΣOYOΣ
PIEΣTOΣ

*IHS* This monogram of the Holy Name, common among Roman Rite Catholics, comes from the first three letters in the Greek spelling of the name of Jesus. Those letters are iota ( "I" ), eta ( "H" ) and sigma ( here rendered as its Roman equivalent: "S").

Variations: Sometimes the iota is rendered as a "J" ( hence, "JHS" ), or one will see the monogram in all Greek letters, or with the final sigma in a "C" shape ( hence "IHC" ), an alternate way of rendering the letter sigma. They all mean the same thing.

*IC X* This monogram is more common among Eastern Christians. It is composed of the first and last letters of Jesus' Name in Greek (iota and sigma) with the first and last letters of Christos, the Greek word for Christ (chi and sigma, respectively). The sigmas are both rendered in "C" form, resulting in "IC X".

This monogram is commonly written on ikons of Christ near His halo to identify Him, and in the phrase "IC X NIKE", meaning "Jesus Christ Conquers".

I C X C

Holy Name Devotions

The simplest form of devotion to the Most Holy Name of JESUS is the devout, loving recitation of that Name above all names. Each time you whisper His precious Name ... "Jesus" ... let it be a loving invocation to your Divine Savior and Lord. You can even make it part of a short prayer, as in saying: "Jesus, I love You!", "Praise You, Jesus", and or, Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on me! ( a form of the Jesus Prayer ).

Praise to the Holy Name of JESUS

O Glorious Name of Jesus,
gracious Name,
Name of love and of power!
Through You sins are forgiven,
enemies are vanquished,
the sick are freed from illness,
the suffering are made strong and cheerful.

You bring honor to believers, instruction to preachers,
strength to those who toil,
and sustenance to the weary.

Our love for You is ardent and glowing,
through You our prayers are heard.
The souls of those who contemplate You
are filled to overflowing;
and all the blessed in heaven
are filled with Your glory.
Grant that we too may reign with them
through this Your most Holy Name. Amen

PRAYERS OF REPARATION FOR BLASPHEMY

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain. ~~ Exodus 20:7

Golden Arrow

"May the most holy, most sacred, most adorable, most mysterious and unutterable Name of God be always praised, blessed, loved, adored and glorified in heaven on earth and under the earth, by all the creatures of God, and by the Sacred Heart of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most Holy Sacrament of the altar." - 1

This prayer is said to have been revealed by Christ Jesus to a Carmelite Nun of Tours in 1843 as a reparation for blasphemy. "This Golden Arrow will wound My Heart delightfully," He said, "and heal the wounds inflicted by blasphemy."

Praise to the Holy Name of Jesus

The Holy Name of our Savior is taken in vain so often. When we hear someone use the Name above all names as a common swear word, we can cross ourselves and reverence the precious Name being defamed. Another commendable practice involves the devout, fervent recitation of the following prayer:

May the Holy Name of Jesus be infinitely blessed!
May the Holy Name of Jesus be infinitely blessed!
May the Holy Name of Jesus be infinitely blessed!
May the Holy Name of Jesus be infinitely blessed!
May the Holy Name of Jesus be infinitely blessed!

Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus

O Sacred Heart of Jesus, animated with a desire to repair the outrages unceasingly offered to Thee, we prostrate before Thy throne of mercy, and in the name of all mankind, pledge our love and fidelity to Thee.

The more Thy mysteries are blasphemed, the more firmly we shall believe them, O Sacred Heart of Jesus!

The more impiety endeavors to extinguish our hope of immortality, the more we shall trust in Thy Heart, sole Hope of mankind!

The more hearts resist Thy Divine attractions, the more we shall love Thee, O infinitely amiable Heart of Jesus!

The more unbelief attacks Thy Divinity, the more humbly and profoundly we shall adore It, O Divine Heart of Jesus!

The more Thy holy laws are transgressed and ignored, the more we shall delight to observe them, O most holy Heart of Jesus!

The more Thy Sacraments are despised and abandoned, the more frequently we shall receive them with love and reverence, O most generous Heart of Jesus!

The more the imitation of Thy virtues is neglected and forgotten, the more we shall endeavor to practice them, O Heart, model of every virtue!

The more the devil labors to destroy souls, the more we shall be inflamed with desire to save them, O Heart of Jesus, zealous Lover of souls!

The more sin and impurity destroy the image of God in man, the more we shall try by purity of life to be a living temple of the Holy Spirit, O Heart of Jesus!

The more Thy Holy Church is despised, the more we shall endeavor to be her faithful children, O Sweet Heart of Jesus!

The more Thy True Vicar on earth is persecuted, the more will we honor him as the infallible head of Thy Holy Church, show our fidelity and pray for him, O kingly Heart of Jesus!

O Sacred Heart, through Thy powerful grace, may we become Thy apostles in the midst of a corrupted world, and be Thy crown in the kingdom of Heaven. Amen.

Nihil Obstat - John J. Clifford, S.J. Censor Liborum
Imprimatur - + Samuel A. Stritch, December 17, 1943 Archbishop of Chicago.

1 - "The Golden Arrow", Pieta Prayer Book, (Hickory Corners, MI: MLOR Corporation, 1995) 61. © MLOR Corporation 1995. ("Pictures or prayers may be reproduced for personal use, not for commercial purposes")
2 - "Act of Reparation", Holy Hour of Reparation booklet, pages 12-13; copyright © 1945 Soul Assurance Plan(TM), Chicago, IL.


5 posted on 07/09/2012 3:36:42 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Our Lady of America

"Behold, O my children, the tears of your Mother! Shall I weep in vain? Assuage the sorrow of my Heart over the ingratitude of sinful men by the love and chasteness of your lives. Will you do this for me, beloved children, or will you allow your Mother to weep in vain? I come to you, O children of Amer-ica, as a last resort. I plead with you to listen to my voice. Cleanse your souls in the Precious Blood of My Son. Live in His Heart, and take me in that I may teach you to live in great purity of heart which is so pleasing to God. Be my army of chaste soldiers, ready to fight to the death to preserve the purity of your souls. I am the Immaculate One, Patroness of your land. Be my faithful children as I have been your faithful Mother." ~~ A.D. 27 September 1956

Beginning A.D. 26 September 1956, the Blessed Virgin Mary, under a specific appearance as "Our Lady of America", manifested Herself to Sister Mary Ephrem (Mildred Neuzil) in the Convent of the Precious Blood Sisters at Rome City, Indiana. Our Lady indicated to Sister that she had come in response to the United States having recognized her privilege of The Immaculate Conception, expecially through The Shrine of The Immaculate Conception at Washington, D.C., and Our Lady of America came with a message for the United States to focus on the Trinity in the Christian Family, with The Holy Family ( Jesus Christ, Mary & Joseph ) as a model. On October 5, 1956, Our Lady inspired Sister Mary Ephrem to write the prayer to "Our Lady of America", which prayer (and the design of a medal of Our Lady of America) subsequently received in A.D. 1963 the formal approval of Imprimatur by Monsignor Paul F. Leibold, who was then serving as auxiliary bishop and Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati.ister Mary Ephrem was blessed to have as her spiritual director Monsignor Leibold for many years until his death in A.D. 1972. During this period, Monsignor Leibold authorized the printing of Our Lady's messages to Sister Mary Ephrem in the form of a diary.

On A.D. 13 October 1956, The Blessed Virgin Mary requested that a statue of "Our Lady of America" be enshrined in the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., as a special place of pilgrimage and a special safeguard for our country. Our Lady promised miracles greater than those of Lourdes and Fatima if her children heeded her warnings and fulfilled her requests. She indicated that this would be accomplished through her loyal sons, the Bishops of the United States.


6 posted on 07/09/2012 3:37:43 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

The Consecration of Russia

Holy Mother, in this age of shameless and defiant impiety, when humanity dares to mock God, even within the walls of Holy Mother Church, we implore the fulfillment of the Will of God that thou didst manifest to the children of Fatima, and especially the decree given by thee to Sister Lucia; for we thy seed well know that His Will hath not been fulfilled; we also know these commands of God Almighty hath not been heeded by the sovereign Pontiffs of our age. For our sake, holy Mother, render an oblation of prayer to thy Son; words of consolation and intercession on our behalf, and plead the wrath of God not deepen upon His Church and the world. Send forth thy legions to usher in the triumph of the Will of God thou didst make manifest at Fatima.

In the apparition of July 13, Our Lady warned the three seers that if people did not stop offending God, He would punish the world "by means of war, hunger and persecution of the Church and of the Holy Father," using Russia as His chosen instrument of chastisement. She told the children that "to prevent this, I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart" and promised that, by this single public act, Russia would be converted and peace would be given to the world.

The Mother of God cautioned that if Her requests were not granted, "Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer and various nations will be annihilated."

True to Her word, Our Lady reappeared to Sister Lucy on June 13, 1929 at Tuy, Spain, when in a great and sublime vision representing the Blessed Trinity, She announced that "the moment has come for God to ask the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. By this means, He promises to save Russia."

When God sent Our Lady to convey His command that Russia be consecrated, it seems clear that He expected swift obedience from the Pope and bishops. The pastors of the Church, however, chose to delay and, on August 19, 1931, Our Lord Himself appeared to Sister Lucy in Rianjo, Spain and expressed His displeasure, saying "make it known to My ministers that, given they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution My command, they will follow him also into misfortune."

Our Lord's warning is a grave one indeed, referring as it does to His command, through Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, to the King of France that he consecrate his nation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ. The King chose to ignore the command and thus condemned his dynasty and throne to the horrors of revolution, chaos and the guillotine.

The Blessed Virgin's request for the Consecration of Russia remains one of the most controversial aspects of the entire Fatima Message. While several popes have undertaken consecrations of the world since the request was made public ( including John Paul II in 1982 and 1984 ), sadly, none of these have fulfilled the specific requirements of Our Lord and Our Lady's requests. In repeated visits to Sister Lucy, Heaven's King and Queen have insisted that it is Russia (and Russia only) that is to be the object of this public act of obedience and prayer. In addition, Our Lord and Our Lady have indicated that the Holy Father is to be joined in the act of consecration by all the Catholic bishops of the world on the same day and at the same time in their respective dioceses. Interestingly, only Pope Pius XII's consecration of the world in 1942 included substantial involvement of the bishops. Sister Lucy has written that this imperfect act of obedience, while not fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima request, nevertheless hastened the end of the Second World War, thus sparing the lives of tens of millions of souls.

In response to Sister Lucy's question why He would not convert Russia without the Holy Father consecrating that nation to His Mother's Immaculate Heart, Our Lord replied "Because I want My whole Church to acknowledge that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary so that it may extend its cult later and put the devotion of the Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart."

Leonine Prayers


Following are the Prayers after Low Mass which were prescribed by Pope Leo XIII and reinforced by Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII to pray for the conversion of Russia. These prayers were in effect until after Vatican II. A decade later Paul VI said, "satan has entered the sanctuary."

   

Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum, benedicta tu in mulieribus et benedictus fructis ventris tui, Jesus Christ. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen. ( Said 3 times ).

Salve Regina, Mater misericordiae, vita, dulcedo, et spes nostra, salve. Ad te clamamus, exsules filii Evae. Ad te suspiramus gementes et fientes in hac lacrymarum valle. Eia ergo, Advocata nostra, illos tuos misericordes oculos ad nos converte. Et Jesum, benedictum fructum ventris tui, nobis, post hoc exilium, ostende. O clemens, o pia, o dulcis Virgo Maria. Ora pro nobis, sancta Dei Genitrix. Ut digni efficiamur promissionibus Christi.

Deus, refugium nostrum et virtus, populum ad te clamantem propitius respice; et intercedente gloriosa, et immaculata Virgine Dei Genitrice Maria, cum beato Joseph, ejus Sponso, ac beatis Apostolis tuis Petro et Paulo, et omnibus Sanctis, quas pro conversione peccatorum, pro libertate et exaltatione sanctae Matris Ecclesiae, preces effundimus, misericors et benignus exaudi. Per eundum Christum Dominum nostrum.

  

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. ( Said 3 times )

  

Hail, Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee to we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mouring and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this exile, show unto us the blessed Fruit of thy womb, Jesus Christ. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary. Pray for us, O holy Mother of God. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

  

O God, our refuge and our strength, look down with mercy upon the people who cry to Thee; and by the intercession of the glorious and immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God, of Saint Joseph her spouse, of the blessed Apostles, and of all the saints, in Thy mercy and goodness hear our prayers for the conversion of sinners, and for the liberty and exaltation of the Holy Mother the Church. Through the same Christ Our Lord.

Click this link for more information on the Consecration of Russia

Also see : Petition to Benedict XVI to consecrate Russia as instructed by The Queen of Heaven and Earth.


7 posted on 07/09/2012 3:39:26 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


8 posted on 07/09/2012 3:40:23 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

The Solution

"....a countless legion of the most saintly men of every age and of every condition have not only held the Rosary most dear, and have most piously recited it; but have also used it at all times as a most powerful weapon to overcome the devil; to preserve the purity of their lives; and acquire virtue more zealously...." ~ ~ Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Letter, Ingravescentibus Malis, On the Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary.


9 posted on 07/09/2012 3:41:41 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

The Most Holy Rosary Of The Blessed Virgin Mary

"I am the Lady of the Rosary" ~~ Speaking to the three children of Fatima.

'Wonder not that you have obtained so little fruit by your labors, you have spent them on barren soil, not yet watered with the dew of Divine Grace. When GOD willed to renew the face of the earth, He began by sending down on it the fertilizing rain of the Angelic Salutation. Therefore preach my Psalter composed of 150 Angelic Salutations and 15 Our Fathers, and you will obtain an abundant harvest'.
'The rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies. It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will withdraw the hearts of men from the love of the world and its vanities, and lift them to the desire of eternal things.'
~~ Words of the Blessed Virgin Mary to Saint Dominic

Prayer To The Lady Of The Rosary

Beloved Lady of the Rosary, I thank you for your great gift of your psalter. As the beads slip through my fingers, may my heart and my lips sing your praise, and my brain contemplate those sacred mysteries of my Holy Faith. May my meditations on your beloved Rosary draw me ever closer, trustingly, to you, and through you to your divine son, my Lord and my God.

The Mysteries of Rosary of The Blessed Virgin Mary

Joyful Mysteries

Often said on Monday and Saturday, the Joyful Mysteries include: The Annunciation, The Visitation, The Birth of Our Lord, The Presentation of Our Lord, and The Finding of Our Lord in the Temple.

Glorious Mysteries

Often said on Wednesday and Sunday the Glorious Mysteries include: The Resurrection, The Ascension, The Coming of the Holy Spirit, The Assumption of our Blessed Mother into Heaven, and The Coronation of our Blessed Mother.

Mysteries of Light

Often said on Thursday, the Mysteries of Light as inspired by and proposed in 1957 by Saint George Preca:

1. When Our Lord Jesus Christ, after his baptism in the Jordan, was led into the desert.

2. When Our Lord Jesus Christ showed, by word and miracles, that He is true God.

3. When Our Lord Jesus Christ taught the Beatitudes on the mountain.

4. When Our Lord Jesus Christ was transfigured on the mountain.

5. When Our Lord Jesus Christ had his last Meal with the Apostles.

Sorrowful Mysteries

Often said on Tuesday and Friday the Sorrowful Mysteries include: The Agony in the Garden, The Scourging at the Pillar, The Crowning with Thorns, The Carrying of the Cross, and The Crucifixion and Death of Our Lord.

History Of The Rosary

Tradition holds that Our Lady gave the Rosary to Saint Dominic Guzman in 1206 as a form of gospel-preaching and popular prayer. For more than seven centuries, the Rosary devotion has been one of the most popular devotional practices in the church. Its combination of vocal and mental prayer have made it a prime tool for contemplation. Jesus Christ is the author and source of grade; Our Lady's Rosary is the key to open the treasury of grace to us.

Although prayer beads had been popular before Dominic's time, he and his friars quickly adopted the Rosary as an excellent way to teach the mysteries of Christianity to a largely illiterate European population. In 1470, Blessed Alan of Rupe founded the first Rosary Confraternity, and thereby launched the Dominican Order as the foremost missionaries of the Rosary. Through the efforts of Blessed Alan and the early Dominicans, this prayer form spread rapidly throughout Western Christendom.

The meditations on the fifteen mysteries serve as reminders of incidents in the lives of Christ and Mary. These are divided into the joyful, sorrowful, and glorious mysteries. Thirteen of the mysteries come from incidents in the New Testament. One, the assumption of Mary into heave, comes from Sacred Tradition. The fifteens, the Crowning of Mary as Queen of Heaven is thought to be derived from images in the Book of Revelation. These meditations make the Rosary a reflection on the fundamental beliefs of our Faith.

Through the years, Our Lady has re-affirmed her approval of this devotion, and her pleasure in the title "Queen of the Rosary." To Blessed Alan, she made fifteen promises to those who devoutly recite her beads. She told him, ".. immense volumes would have to be written if all the miracles of my Holy Rosary were to be recorded." Our Lady's promises are:

  • Those who shall have served me constantly by reciting the Rosary shall receive some special grace.

  • I promise my special protection and great graces to all who devoutly recite my Psalter.

  • The Rosary shall be a most powerful armor against hell; it shall destroy vices, weaken sin, overthrow unbelief.

  • It shall make virtues and good works to flourish again; it shall obtain for souls abundant mercies of God; it shall win the hearts of men from the love of the world and its vanities, and life them to a desire of things eternal. Oh, how many souls will be sanctified by this means !


  • The soul which has recourse to me through the Rosary shall not perish.


  • Whoever shall have recited the Rosary devoutly and with meditation on its mysteries, shall never be overcome by misfortunes, shall not experience the anger of God, shall not be lost by a sudden death; but if he be in sin he shall be converted; and if he be in grace, he shall persevere and be made worth of eternal life.


  • Truly devoted servants of my Rosary shall not die without the Sacraments.


  • It is my will that those who recite my Rosary have, in life and in death, light and the plenitude of graces; and in life and death, may participate in the merits of the saints.


  • Every day I deliver from Purgatory souls devoted to my Rosary.


  • True servants of my Rosary shall enjoy great glory in heaven.


  • Whatever you shall ask through the Rosary, you shall obtain.


  • I will assist in every necessity those who propagate my Rosary.


  • I have obtained from my Son that all members of the Confraternity of my Rosary may have in life and in death all the blessed as their associated.


  • All who recite my Rosary are my children and the brethren of my Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ


  • Devotion to my Rosary is a great sign of predestination.

Our Lady told Blessed Bartolo Longo to propagate the Rosary, and promised that those who would propagate this devotion would be saved. In 1884, Our Lady of Pompeii appeared at Naples to Fortuna Agrelli, who was desperately ill. She told Fortuna that the title "Lady of the Holy Rosary" was one which was particularly pleasing to her, and cured Fortuna of her illness.

At Lourdes, Our Lady told Saint Bernadette to pray many rosaries. When Bernadette saw the beautiful lady, she instinctively took her Rosary in her hands and knelt down. The lady made a sign of approval with her head, and took into her hands a Rosary which hung on her right arm. As Bernadette prayed, Our Lady passed the beads of her Rosary through her fingers, but said nothing except the Gloria at the end of each decade. At Fatima, Mary told the children to pray the Rosary often.

Popes throughout history have loved the Rosary. Not a single Pope in the last four hundred years has failed to urge devotion to the Rosary. From Pope Sixtus IV, in 1479, to the present day, all popes have urged the use of this devotion, and enriched its recitation with indulgences.

Pius XI dedicated the entire month of October to the Rosary.

Pope Saint Pius X said :

"Of all the prayers, the Rosary is the most beautiful and the richest in graces; of all, it is the one most pleasing to Mary, the Virgin Most Holy."

Pope Leo XIII repeatedly recommended the Rosary as a most powerful means whereby to move God to aid us in meeting the needs of the present age. In 1883, he inserted the invocation, "Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, pray for us ! " into the Liturgy for the Universal Church. John XXIII who was particularly faithful to the daily recital of the whole Rosary has said, " We can never sufficiently recommend the saying of the Rosary, not simply with the lips but with attention of the soul to the divine truths, with a heart filled with love and gratitude." John Paul II tells us to "... love the simple, fruitful prayer of the Rosary." Many of the Saints, and a number of the religious orders have praised the Rosary. Saint Charles said he depended on the Rosary almost entirely for the conversion and sanctification of his diocese. Founders of most religious orders have either commanded or recommended the daily recitation of the Rosary. The Benedictines speedily adapted this devotion in their ancient cloisters. The Carmelites were happy to receive the Rosary as well as their rule from the Dominicans. The Franciscans made their rosaries out of wood, and preached this devotion as well as poverty. The Servites wore their rosaries as a badge of that servitude which is the only true liberty. Inspired by the example of their founder, the Jesuits invariably propagated the devotion. Saint Francis Xavier used the touch of his chaplet as a means of healing the sick. Saint Vincent de Paul instructed the members of his order to depend more on the Rosary than upon their preaching.

Our ancestors had recourse to the Rosary as an every- ready refuge in misfortune, and as a pledge and a proof of their Christian faith and devotion. Saint Dominic used the Rosary as a weapon in his battle against the Albigensian heresy in France. In the last century, the Christian successes over the Turks at Temesvar and at Corfu coincided with the conclusion of public devotions of the Rosary. During the penal days in Ireland, the Rosary bound the Irish Catholics together as the church militant. When it was a felony to teach the Catholic Catechism, and death for a priest to say Mass, the Irish mothers used their rosaries to tell their little ones the story of Jesus Christ and Mary, and thus kept the Faith green in the hearts of their children. Saint John Vianney, the Cure d'Ars, declared emphatically that in the nineteenth century it was the Rosary which restored religion in France. Likewise, in the dark days of persecution in Mexico, in our own century, the sturdy Mexican Catholics clung faithfully to their rosaries. The martyr Miguel Pro was allowed his last request before being shot by a firing squad --- he knelt and prayed his Rosary. A special society, the Society of the Living Rosary, was founded by the Venerable Marie Pauline Jaricot in the city of Lyons, France, in 1826. She formed bands of fifteen members who each said one decade of the Rosary daily. Thus, the entire Rosary is said collectively by the members of each circle daily.

Father Timothy Ricci, O.P., instituted the Perpetual Rosary, or Mary's Guard of Honor, in 1635. The aim of this devotion is to unite the members in such a way that some devoted watchers will ever be found in prayer and praise at Our Lady's shrine, telling their beads for the conversion of sinners, the relief of the dying, and the succor of the dead. In Belgium, the Dominican nuns of the Third Order established a monastery for the express purpose of maintaining the Perpetual Rosary, so that there it became not merely the devotion of a society, but the distinctive work of a community. A number of shrines of the order are to be found in the United States. Here, the Rosary is said day and night by members of the community. Rosary processions are held, and pilgrims sing again and again the praises of the Heavenly Queen of all Roman Rite Catholics.

Our Lady has 117 blessed titles. Above all, She selected this title at Fatima: "I am the Lady of the Rosary."

  • Saint Francis de Sales said the greatest method of praying is: Pray the Rosary.


  • Saint Thomas Aquinas preached 40 straight days in Rome Italy on just the Hail Mary.


  • Saint John Vianney, patron of priests, was seldom seen without a rosary in his hand.


  • "The rosary is the scourge of the devil" -- Pope Adrian VI


  • "The rosary is a treasure of graces" -- Pope Paul V


  • Padre Pio the stigmatic priest said: "The Rosary is the weapon".


  • Several popes wrote encyclicals on the rosary.

John XXIII spoke 38 times about our Lady and the Rosary. He prayed 15 decades daily.

  • Saint Louis Marie Grignion de Montfort wrote: "The rosary is the most powerful weapon to touch the Heart of Jesus Christ, Our Redeemer, who so loves His Mother."

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary that never was it known that anyone who fled to Your protection, implored Your help, or sought Your intercession was left unaided. Inspired with this confidence, we fly to you, O Virgin of virgins, our Mother. To You we come; before You we stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not our petitions, but in Your mercy, hear and answer us. Amen.


10 posted on 07/09/2012 3:43:23 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Consueverunt Romani

On the Rosary

Encyclical of Pope Saint Pius V

Anno Dómini 17 September 1569

Decree by Pope Saint Pius V on the power of the Holy Rosary, even before the great Catholic victory at the Battle of Lepanto A.D. 1571.

The Roman Pontiffs, and the other Holy Fathers, our predecessors, when they were pressed in upon by temporal or spiritual wars, or troubled by other trials, in order that they might more easily escape from these, and having achieved tranquility, might quietly and fervently be free to devote themselves to God, were wont to implore the divine assistance, through supplications or Litanies to call forth the support of the saints, and with David to lift up their eyes unto the Mountains, trusting with firm hope that thence would they receive aid.

1. Prompted by their example, and, as is piously believed, by the Holy Ghost, the inspired Blessed founder of the Order of Friar Preachers, ( whose institutes and rule we ourselves expressly professed when we were in minor orders ), in circumstances similar to those in which we now find ourselves, when parts of France and of Italy were unhappily troubled by the heresy of the Albegenses, which blinded so many of the worldly that they were raging most savagely against the priests of the Lord and the clergy, raised his eyes up unto heaven, unto that mountain of the Glorious Virgin Mary, loving Mother of God.

For she by her seed has crushed the head of the twisted serpent, and has alone destroyed all heresies, and by the blessed fruit of her womb has saved a world condemned by the fall of our first parent. From her, without human hand, was that stone cut, which, struck by wood, poured forth the abundantly flowing waters of graces.

And so Dominic looked to that simple way of praying and beseeching God, accessible to all and wholly pious, which is called the Rosary, or Psalter of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in which the same most Blessed Virgin is venerated by the angelic greeting repeated one hundred and fifty times, that is, according to the number of the Davidic Psalter, and by the Lord's Prayer with each decade. Interposed with these prayers are certain meditations showing forth the entire life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, thus completing the method of prayer devised by the Fathers of the Holy Roman Church.

This same method Saint Dominic propagated, and it was, spread by the Friars of Blessed Dominic, namely, of the aforementioned Order, and accepted by not a few of the people. Christ's faithful, inflamed by these prayers, began immediately to be changed into new men. The darkness of heresy began to be dispelled, and the light of the Catholic Faith to be revealed. Sodalities for this form of prayer began to be instituted in many places by the Friars of the same Order, legitimately deputed to this work by their Superiors, and confreres began to be enrolled together.

2. Following the example of our predecessors, seeing that the Church militant, which God has placed in our hands, in these our times is tossed this way and that by so many heresies, and is grievously troubled and afflicted by so many wars, and by the deprave morals of men, we also raise our eyes, weeping but full of hope, unto that same mountain, whence every aid comes forth, and we encourage and admonish each member of Christ’s faithful to do likewise in the Lord.

Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, under the Fisherman's ring, 17 September 1569, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

*A.A.S., vol. XCIII (2001), n. 11, pp. 749-750

© Copyright 2000 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana


11 posted on 07/09/2012 3:44:21 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Ecclesia Militans

We are in a spiritual and physical war against the army of Satan. Put on the armor of Faith.

Consecrate yourselves totally to the Sacred Heart of Jesus Christ and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Wear the Brown Scapular. Pray the Rosary everyday.


12 posted on 07/09/2012 3:45:10 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS
( NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH )


Altar of the Crucifixion - Church of the Holy Sepulchre

"Sicut palmes non potest ferre fructum a semitipso nisi manserit in vite: sic nec vos, nisi in Me maseritis"
( "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me" )

- Blessed Apostle Saint John 15:4

Today's pluralistic and godless society creates an environment of indifference in matters of religion in order to achieve a false and empty unity and liberty. It is said that everyone must be allowed to believe as they see fit and do what makes them happy. The implication is that God is not very concerned about whether one believes in what is true, for all will be saved as long as they are "nice." Some come to this conclusion by asserting that there does not exist any objective truth for us to adhere to, which in turn leads to a denial of the existence of God. Others say that there exist only a few basic objective truths that we need to believe in order to be saved. Both opinions miss the plain reality of the order established by God one must believe all and everything that the Catholic Church teaches to be saved.

This assertion implies that all non-Catholic religions are false, that only the Catholic Church contains the entire deposit of Truth given to the Apostles by Christ, and that this entire deposit not a majority of it or a part of it is necessary for salvation. Although these truths are denied and scorned by today's world, they are fully in accord with common sense and the constant teaching of the Church. Christ gave to the Apostles the entire deposit of faith "The Holy Ghost will teach you all things" ( Blessed Apostle Saint John 14:26 ), told them to pass it on to the world ( "Going therefore, teach ye all nations". ( Blessed Apostle Saint Matthew 28:19 ), and threatened damnation for those who did not believe them," "He who believes not will be condemned" ( Blessed Apostle Saint Mark 16:16 ). He would not have condemned to hell the disbelievers if either it was not important to believe all that the Apostles taught or if He was not certain that the Apostles were teaching the truth "He that heareth you heareth Me" ( Blessed Apostle Saint Luke 10:16 ). The Apostles themselves knew that all who believed in any way different from their infallible teaching would perish, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema" ( Galatians 1:8 ).

Christ did not intend for only men who lived in the Apostles' lifetime to know and live the Truth. He ensured that the deposit of faith would be passed on throughout the generations so that all might have an opportunity to believe all that He entrusted to the Apostles - "I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" ( Blessed Apostle Saint Matthew 28:20 ). His unchanging and indispensable truth, will never change, and it is as important for each of us to hold it today as it was believed in the first century. It is only by holding to what is true that we can love and serve God and be saved, for false principles lead to evil actions. Since there is only one truth and it is unchanging and indispensable, it is impossible for more than one of the systems of belief or religions that exist in the world to lead to salvation. Any other position negates the words of Our Lord.

It is certainly through the Catholic Church that Our Lord has guided men to keep the deposit entrusted to the Apostles throughout the centuries. It is the Catholic Church that defeated the many heresies against the nature and person of the Christ, long before Protestant denominations appeared, such as Arianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Nestorianism, Pelagianism, Apollonarism, etc.. all of these had to be opposed vigorously with the true doctrine before they were extirpated, and some still exist today. It is the Catholic Church that holds to the same doctrines that the Fathers, who had the words of the Apostles "resounding in their ears", taught and defended and which all but the schismatics reject today auricular confession, veneration of images, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the existence of seven sacraments, the Church as the final arbiter of all doctrinal disputes, and many more. It is only the Catholic Church that has not changed and it is only She that has existed since the time of Jesus Christ .

The Church has certainly always been aware that she has been given by Jesus Christ the entire deposit of revelation to guard until the last day and thus asserts the infallibility of her Supreme Pastor, appointed by Jesus Christ to be His Vicar on earth, and also that salvation can be found only within her maternal bosom. Whenever the Pope, 1.) using his full apostolic authority, 2.) defines, 3.) as supreme teacher of all faithful Catholics, 4.) a matter of faith or morals 5.) that must be held by the universal Church, he is infallible and is expressing a doctrine that is part of the deposit of the faith entrusted to the Apostles and which has been believed always and everywhere by true Catholics.

The Catholic Church has solemnly defined three times by infallible declarations that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. The most explicit and forceful of the three came from Pope Eugene IV, in the Bull Cantate Domino, A.D. 1441, who proclaimed ex cathedra : "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' ( Blessed Apostle Saint Matthew 25:41 ) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his alms giving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Jesus Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

The other two infallible declarations are as follows: There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved. Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, ( Fourth Lateran Council, A.D. 1215 ).

We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Pope Boniface VIII, ( Unam Sanctam, A.D. 1302).

This means, and has always meant, that salvation and unity exist only within the Catholic Church, and that members of heretical groups cannot be considered as "part" of the Church of Jesus Christ . This doctrine has been the consistent teaching of the Popes throughout the centuries.

Further, it is dogmatically set forth that no authority in the Church, no matter how highly placed, may lawfully attempt to change the clear meaning of this (or any) infallible dogma. Vatican I taught: "The meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding." This same Vatican I defined solemnly that not even a Pope may teach a new doctrine.

Naturally, the truth that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church has been supported by all the saints from every age. Following are several examples:

Saint Irenaeus ( A.D. 130-202 ), Bishop and Martyr: "The Church is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them . . . . We hear it declared of the unbelieving and the blinded of this world that they shall not inherit the world of life which is to come . . . . Resist them in defense of the only true and life giving faith, which the Church has received from the Apostles and imparted to her sons."
Saint Augustine ( A.D. 354-430 ), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: "No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honor, one can have sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the Name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church."

Saint Fulgentius ( A.D. 468-533 ), Bishop: "Most firmly hold and never doubt that not only pagans, but also Jews, all heretics, and all schismatics who finish this life outside of the Catholic Church, will go into eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Pope Saint Gregory the Great ( A.D. 590-604 ): "The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in Her and asserts that all who are outside of Her will not be saved."
Saint Francis of Assisi ( A.D. 1182-1226 ): "All who have not believed that Jesus Christ was really the Son of God are doomed. Also, all who see the Sacrament of the Body of Christ and do not believe it is really the most holy Body and Blood of the Lord . . . these also are doomed!"
Saint Thomas Aquinas ( A.D. 1226-1274 ), the Angelic Doctor: "There is no entering into salvation outside the Catholic Church, just as in the time of the Flood there was not salvation outside the Ark, which denotes the Church."
Saint Louis Marie de Montfort ( A.D. 1673-1716 ): "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes."
Saint Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: "Outside the Church there is no salvation...therefore in the symbol ( Apostles Creed ) we join together the Church with the remission of sins: 'I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins"...For this reason the Church is compared to the Ark of Noah, because just as during the deluge, everyone perished who was not in the ark, so now those perish who are not in the Church."
Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori ( A.D. 1696-1787 ), Bishop and Doctor of the Church: "All the misfortunes of unbelievers spring from too great an attachment to the things of life. This sickness of heart weakens and darkens the understanding, and leads to eternal ruin. If they would try to heal their hearts by purging them of their vices, they would soon receive light, which would show them the necessity of joining the Catholic Church, where alone is salvation. We should constantly thank the Lord for having granted us the gift of the true Faith, by associating us with the children of the Holy Catholic Church ... How many are the infidels, heretics, and schismatics who do not enjoy the happiness of the true Faith! Earth is full of them and they are all lost!"Pope Pius XII ( A.D. 1939-1958 ): "Some say they are not bound by the doctrine which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian Faith. These and like ERRORS, it is clear, have crept in among certain of our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science."

The greatest act of charity that one can perform is to bring others to the truth. The Catholic Faith is a gift from God, one that can be shared, one that gives life and salvation. Mother Church, being solicitous for the welfare of all mankind, has always sought to bring all into the One Fold ( Blessed Apostle Saint John 10:16 ), and to unite all in the profession of the one Faith given to us by Jesus Christ and taught to the faithful by the Apostles and their successors. If She were to hide the truth, or be content to leave others in their error, She would be cruel and indifferent to the command of Jesus Christ .

This is a great lesson for Catholics, for many do not esteem the priceless value of their Faith as they should. It must be given to others at every opportunity; it must be passed on to those who languish without the true sacraments, who struggle to interpret the Bible without an infallible teaching authority, or who lead often immoral lives without the guidance of the "....pillar and ground of truth...." ( I Blessed Apostle Saint Timothy 3:15 ).

Let all Catholics then, be both like the martyrs of old, who died rather than relinquish one doctrine of their Catholic Faith, and like the great missionaries, who endured extreme privations and sufferings in order to bring salvation to even one soul. It is only a firm belief in the importance of the Catholic Faith for salvation that motivated these heroic actions, and it is only such a faith that can "....overcometh the world : and this is the victory which overcometh the world, our faith" today ( I Blessed Apostle Saint John 5:4).

www.olrl.org/doctrine/

Popes through the centuries have defended the doctrine outside the Church there is no salvation. Here is small reference of their infalable teachings on the matter:

Ordinary Magisterium

Pope Pelagius II ( A.D. 578 - 590 ): Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. [If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church. ( Denzinger 246-247 ).

Pope Saint Gregory the Great ( A.D. 590 - 604 ): Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved. ( Moralia )

Pope Innocent III ( A.D. 1198 - 1216 ): With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved. (Denzinger 423)

Pope Leo XII ( A.D. 1823 - 1829 ): We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother. (Encyclical, Ubi Primum )

Pope Gregory XVI ( A.D. 1831 - 1846 ): It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved. (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter )

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878): It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood. ( Denzinger 1647 )

Pope Leo XIII ( A.D. 1878 - 1903 ): This is our last lesson to you; receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church. (Encyclical, Annum Ingressi Sumus )

He scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ Christ, and all who fight not jointly with Him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God. ( Encyclical, Sapientiae Christianae )

Pope Saint Pius X ( A.D. 1903 - 1914 ): It is our duty to recall to everyone great and small, as the Holy Pontiff Gregory did in ages past, the absolute necessity which is ours, to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation. (Encyclical, Jucunda Sane )

Pope Benedict XV ( A.D. 1914 - 1922 ): Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. ( Encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum )

Pope Pius XI ( A.D. 1922 - 1939 ): The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. (Encyclical, Mortalium Animos )

Pope Pius XII ( A.D. 1939 - 1958 ): By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth. ( Allocution to the Gregorian, October 17, 1953 )

Extraordinary Magisterium

Then, as though to set this constant teaching of the Fathers, Doctors and Popes in concrete, so to speak, we have the following definitions from the Solemn Magisterium of the Church:

Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV ( A.D. 1215 ): One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved

Pope Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam ( A.D. 1302 ): We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1438 - 1445): [The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.


13 posted on 07/09/2012 3:46:30 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

"Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition,
even if they are reduced to but a handful,
they are THE TRUE CHURCH. They've got the churches, but we've got the faith"

-- Saint Athanasius, "Apostle of Tradition", 373 Anno Domini

The Holy Tridentine Roman Rite Mass

The Tridentine Mass takes its name from the Council of Trent ( 1545-63 ), under the watchful eye of Pope Saint Pius V. The "Tridentine Rite" is, therefore, more properly called the Ancient or Traditional Roman Rite. The last edition of its missal was published in 1962.

The traditional Roman Rite differs from the new rite -- the 1969 Novus Ordo. This “new Mass” omits about 70 percent of the traditional Mass prayers. Most consider the traditional Latin Mass to be much more formal, more dignified.

It’s emphasis is on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the recognition of the “true presence” of Jesus Christ—Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity—in the Holy EuchariSaint The entire Mass focuses on the Consecration of the Body and Blood and on reception of Christ in Holy Communion. This is represented in the photograph below.

The priest and the faithful face forward to the altar...and to God. The Holy Traditional Tridentine Roman Rite Latin Mass is the manner in which Catholics worshiped The One True God for well over 1,000 years. For those over the age of 40, it is the Mass of their youth. For those too young to remember incense filled churches, Gregorian chant, and the reverent silence at Mass, the Tridentine rite offers a return to a profound manner of worship.


14 posted on 07/09/2012 3:47:41 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

THE TRUE MASS

In 1969, Pope Paul VI issued a New Order of the Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae. Up to that time, what is commonly referred to as the "Tridentine" or "Latin" Mass, was used by His Universal Church. On the face of things, it may seem to be a simple matter for the Pope to change the Mass. It has been done before. Is there a difference, then, between the modifications made by Paul VI and the liturgical changes of the past? There is a radical difference, and one that has had disastrous consequences for His Church.

THE NEW MASS CONTRADICTS TRADITION

The "Tridentine" or Roman Rite Mass, while it has developed organically over the 2,000 year history of the Church, is essentially the Mass that was given to the Apostles and the Church by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Although various rites emerged, they all maintained the same spirit imparted to the liturgy by Our Lord and were only adapted to various cultures without any deviation in doctrine. The Roman Rite, up to Vatican II, underwent only minor changes, such that the famous English liturgist Fr. Adrian Fortescue was able to state that "no one has ventured to touch it except in unimportant details."

Pope Saint Pius V, to protect the Roman Rite from innovations and eliminate any variations, codified the Traditional Latin Mass in the Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum in A.D. 1570. The Mass that he was confirming was not some new creation like the Novus Ordo Missae, but a Mass that matched in every respect the Faith of the Apostles. Nor was it the Mass of some particular area of the Church like the Eastern rites, but the universal rite of the Church, the rite of the Roman See. His bull says in part:

"We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

"Furthermore, by these presents , in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain . . . that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force . . . [ The complete Apostolic Constitution "Quo Primum" of Pope Saint Pius V (July 14, 1570) is available in this thread ].

What, then, was done at Vatican II? Were some changes made merely in "unimportant details"? Was the proper honor and respect given to the Rite essentially bestowed by Christ on His Church and confirmed by incomparable proofs in the form of thousands of saints and countless miracles? On A.D 5 June 1969 Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani of the Holy Office, and Antonio Cardinal Bacci, along with a group of Roman theologians, presented Pope Paul VI with a "Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass." The Study contained a cover letter signed by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci which says, in part: Most Holy Father, having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:

1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery . . . ("The Ottaviani Intervention -- Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass" is available from TAN Books or online).

Vatican I in A.D. 1870 defined the Pope to be, not an absolute monarch, but the guarantor of obedience to the revealed word. The legitimacy of his power was bound up above all with his transmitting the Faith. This fidelity to the deposit of the Faith and to its transmission concerns in a quite special way the liturgy. No authority can 'fabricate' a liturgy. The Pope himself is only the humble servant of its homogenous development, its integrity, and the permanence of its identity." The Pope, as the guardian of the Deposit of Faith, has a duty to preserve the liturgy intact and pass it on essentially unmodified to the next generation. The very authors of Vatican II, on the other hand, openly acknowledged their desire not to pass on Tradition, but to make it.

Saint Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century gave as a standard for the orthodoxy of doctrine that which has been believed everywhere (ubique), always (semper), and by all (omnia). But, as Cardinal Ratzinger points out, the Council Fathers of Vatican II rejected this hallowed definition: "Vatican II's refusal of the proposal to adopt the text of Lerins, familiar to, and, as it were, sanctified by two Church Councils, shows once more how Trent and Vatican I were left behind; how their texts were continually reinterpreted... Vatican II had a new idea of how historical identity and continuity were to be brought about." This new idea was nothing other than to create a pseudo-tradition from the "common consciousness" of the Council Fathers. This is pure Modernism and totally contrary to the Deposit of Faith.

THE DESTRUCTION OF CATHOLIC WORSHIP IS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH

The Church has always set forth the firm and clear principle that: "The way we worship is the way we believe." The doctrinal truths of the Faith are embodied in the worship we offer to God. In other words, it is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that teaches us our theology and not the reverse. The True Mass comprises the Apostolic Tradition of faith and morals in its very essence. Every doctrine essential to the Faith is taught therein. Pope Leo XIII points out in Apostolicae Curae that the Church's enemies have always understood this principle as "They knew only too well the intimate bond that unites faith with worship, the law of belief with the law of prayer, and so, under the pretext of restoring the order of the liturgy to its primitive form, they corrupted it in many respects to adapt it to the errors of the Innovators." It is no wonder, then, that Luther coined the slogan: "Take away the Mass, destroy the Church."

Saint Alphonsus Liguori (Bishop, Doctor of the Church and Patron of Theologians) explains that "The devil has always attempted, by means of the heretics, to deprive the world of the Mass, making them precursors of the Anti-Christ, who, before anything else, will try to abolish and will actually abolish the Holy Sacrament of the altar, as a punishment for the sins of men, according to the prediction of Daniel: 'And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice' ( Daniel 8:12 )." The question then becomes: Does the New Mass teach the Catholic Faith? No, say both Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci: "It is clear that the Novus Ordo no longer intends to present the Faith as taught by the Council of Trent."

Pope Saint Leo the Great (Father and Doctor of the Church) instructs us: "Teach nothing new, but implant in the hearts of everyone those things which the fathers of venerable memory taught with a uniform preaching. . . Whence, we preach nothing except what we have received from our forefathers. In all things, therefore, both in the rule of faith in the observance of discipline, let the pattern of antiquity be observed."

How well founded, then, were the concerns expressed by Pope Pius XII shortly before the introduction of the New Mass: "I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy at Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the Faith in Her liturgy."

When you place the prayers and ceremonies of the traditional Latin Mass side by side with those of the New Mass, you can easily see to what degree the Church's traditional doctrine has been "edited out." And the "editing" always seems to have been done on those parts of the Mass expressing some Catholic doctrine which Protestants find "offensive."

Here are some examples:

Common Penitential Rite: The traditional Mass begins with the priest reciting personal prayers of reparation to God called "The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar." The New Mass begins instead with a "Penitential Rite" which the priest and people recite together. Who were the first to introduce a common penitential rite? The 16th century Protestants, who wanted to promote their teaching that the priest is no different from the layman.

The Offertory: The Offertory prayers of the traditional Mass clearly express a number of Catholic teachings, as that the Mass is offered to God to satisfy for sin and that the saints are to be honored. The Protestants rejected these teachings and so abolished the Offertory prayers. "That abomination called the Offertory," said Luther, "and from this point almost everything stinks of oblation!" In the New Mass as well, the Offertory is gone -- it has been replaced with a ceremony called "The Preparation of the Gifts." The prayers "offensive" to Protestants have also been removed. In their place is the prayer "Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation," based on a Jewish grace before meals.

The "Eucharistic Prayer":The traditional Mass has only one "Eucharistic Prayer," the ancient Roman Canon. The Canon was always a favorite target of Lutheran and other Protestant attacks. Instead of just one Canon, the New Mass now has a number of "Eucharistic Prayers," only one of which we will mention here. Eucharistic Prayer No. 1 is an "edited" version of the Roman Canon. The lists of Catholic saints, so despised by Protestants, are now optional, and hence rarely used. The translators did some further "editing." Among other things, the idea that Christ the Victim is offered at Mass (a notion Luther condemned) has disappeared. All the Eucharistic Prayers now incorporate some typical Protestant practice. They are recited in a loud voice instead of silently, and they have an "Institution Narrative," instead of a Consecration. (According to Protestant beliefs, their ministers do not consecrate the Eucharist like Catholic priests do; they just narrate the story of the Last Supper.) Even Christs' own words in the Consecration were altered: ". . . Which shall be shed for you and for many, unto the remission of sins" was changed to ". . . It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven." ( Rome acknowledged this "mistranslation" recently. ).

The various signs of respect toward Our Lord present in the Blessed Sacrament (genuflections, signs of the cross, bells, incense, etc.) have been reduced, made optional, or eliminated. Communion in the Hand: The 16th century Protestant Martin Bucer condemned the Church's practice of placing the Host on the tongue of the communicant as something introduced out of "a double superstition: first, the false honor they wish to show to this sacrament, and secondly, the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration." The practice in Protestant churches of "communion in the hand" is thus based upon their rejection of Christ's Real Presence and the priesthood.

At the New Mass, just as at a Protestant service, there is Communion in the hand. But the men who created the New Mass went even further, for a layman may not only receive Communion in the hand -- he is also permitted to distribute it, even on a moment's notice. Let us recall Saint Thomas Aquinas' ( A.D. 1225-1274 )* words on this subject: "The body of Christ must not be touched by anyone, other than a consecrated prieSaint No other person has the right to touch it, except in case of extreme necessity" ( III, 82 a.3 ). ( *Saint Thomas Aquinas was given the title "Angelic Doctor". His canonization decree states, "His doctrine was none other than miraculous. He has enlightened the Church more than all other Doctors")

Veneration of the Saints: The prayers of the traditional Mass frequently invoke the saints by name and beg their intercession. The Church's veneration of the saints in her worship was another practice which Protestants dismissed as "superstition." The New Order of the Mass dropped most invocations of the saints by name, or made them optional. In the new Missal, moreover, the weekday prayers for saints' feast days ( most of which have beeen made optional ) have been rewritten for the benefit of Protestants -- allusions to miracles, the defense of the Catholic Faith, or to the Catholic Church as the one, true Church have disappeared.

False Translations: Lastly, there is the matter of the false official English translations of the New Mass. A whole book could be written on the errors and distortions they contain. Here we will mention briefly only the official translations of the prayers for the 34 "Sundays in Ordinary Time." The following are some of the ideas which the English translation suppresses: God's wrath, our unworthiness, error, sins which "burden our consciences," God's majesty, obedience to His commandments, supplication, humility, eternity, heaven -- many more could be listed. Perhaps the most serious omission is the word "grace." It appears 11 times in the Latin original. It does not appear even once in the official English "translation"!

The Catechism of the Council of Trent tells us that "a Catholic sins against the Faith by participating in non-Catholic worship." The New Mass is not Catholic worship, even if it has retained the name "Catholic," as did the Anglican liturgy until recently.

FRUITS OF VATICAN II AND THE NEW MASS

"By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit" ( Blessed Apostle Saint Matthew 7:15-17 ). Given the foregoing, it should be plain that the New Mass was conceived for an evil purpose and constructed by evil means. It only follows that such a tree would have disastrous effects on the Church. Let us look at its fruits as reported in Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II by Kenneth Jones :

Priests. While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000, between 1930 and 1965, since then that number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.

Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a prieSaint Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes.

Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.

Sisters. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.

Religious Orders. For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests. In 2000, the figure was 389. With the Christian Brothers, the situation is even more dire. Their number has shrunk by two-thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99 percent. In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers. In 2000, there were only seven. The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.

Catholic schools. Almost half of all Catholic high schools in the United States have closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools suffered an even greater decline. Some 4,000 have disappeared, and the number of pupils attending has fallen below 2 million -- from 4.5 million.

Catholic Marriage. Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one-third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments has soared from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.

Attendance at Mass. A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A recent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend. Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry. Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic without going to mass on Sundays. By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus Christ.

Who could possibly claim that there is not a terrible crisis of faith in the Catholic Church!? It is no wonder that Cardinal Ratzinger affirmed: "I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy." It is clear how the New Mass could create such a disaster. Liturgy dictates belief. A protestantized liturgy yields heretical belief, loss of the Faith, and devaluation of the priesthood. Satan has been able to accomplish more effective damage to the entire body of the Church in the past 35 years through the destruction of the Mass than ever before.

CONCLUSION

The New Mass is condemned by its own nature and by its fruits. The crisis in the Church will continue to worsen until we return to orthodoxy and discipline. What is a Catholic to do in such troublesome times? He must follow the advice of Saint Vincent of Lerins: "What then shall the Catholic do if some portion of the Church detaches itself from communion of the universal Faith? If some new contagion attempts to poison, no longer a small part of the Church, but the whole Church at once, then his great concern will be to attach himself to antiquity ( Tradition ) which can no longer be led astray by any lying novelty." Saint Athanasius, one of the four great Doctors of the Eastern Church, earned the title of "Father of Orthodoxy" for his strong and uncompromising defense of our Catholic Faith against the Arian Heresy which affected most of the hierarchy, including the pope. Athanasius was banned from his diocese at least five times, spending a total of seventeen years in exile. He sent the following letter to his flock which is a powerful lesson for our times: "What saddens you is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises -- but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important? The place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle? The one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?"

Please pray that our dear Savior will grant to our holy Father the Pope and the bishops of the Church the grace to abolish the protestanized New Mass and return to the exclusive use of the Traditional Latin Mass. The disastrous results and the loss of faith due to Vatican II and the New Mass are obvious. The only safe course to follow is to attend the Traditional Latin Mass no matter the coSaint It is not worth the risk of losing one's soul for all eternity.

Sincerely in Christ,
Our Lady of the Rosary Library
Edited By Robert Drobot

Our Lady has 117 blessed titles. Above all, She selected this title at Fatima:
"I am the Lady of the Rosary"


15 posted on 07/09/2012 3:49:00 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

   

PIO Pope Pius XII

SERVO DEI SERVI DI DIO

LETTERA ENCICLICA

AI VENERABILI FRATELLI PATRIARCHI
PRIMATI ARCIVESCOVI VESCOVI
E AGLI ALTRI ORDINARI
AVENTI CON L’APOSTOLICA SEDE
SALUTE E APOSTOLICA BENEDIZIONE
PACE E COMUNIONE

CIRCA ALCUNE FALSE OPINIONI CHE MINACCIANO
DI SOVVERTIRE I FONDAMENTI DELLA DOTTRINA CATTOLICA"

Introduzione

I dissensi e gli errori degli uomini in materia religiosa e morale, per tutti gli onesti, soprattutto dei i sinceri e fedeli figli della Chiesa, sono sempre stati origine e causa di fortissimo dolore, ma specialmente oggi, quando vediamo come da ogni parte vengano offesi gli stessi principi della cultura cristiana.

Veramente non c'è da meravigliarsi, se fuori dell'ovile di Cristo sempre vi sono stati questi dissensi ed errori. Benché la ragione umana, assolutamente parlando, con le sue forze e con la sua luce naturale possa effettivamente arrivare alla conoscenza, vera e certa, di Dio unico e personale, che con la sua Provvidenza sostiene e governa il mondo, e anche alla conoscenza della legge naturale impressa dal Creatore nelle nostre anime, tuttavia non pochi sono gli ostacoli che impediscono alla nostra ragione di servirsi con efficacia e con frutto di questo suo naturale potere. Le verità che riguardano Dio e le relazioni tra gli uomini e Dio trascendono del tutto l'ordine delle cose sensibili; quando poi si fanno entrare nella pratica della vita e la informano, allora richiedono sacrificio e abnegazione.

Nel raggiungere tali verità , l'intelletto umano incontra ostacoli della fantasia, sia per le cattive passioni provenienti dal peccato originale. Avviene che gli uomini in queste cose volentieri si persuadono che sia falso, o almeno dubbio, ciò che essi "non vogliono che sia vero". Per questi motivi si deve dire che la Rivelazione divina è moralmente necessaria affinché quelle verità che in materia religiosa e morale non sono per sé irraggiungibili, si possano da tutti conoscere con facilità , con ferma certezza e senza alcun errore. (Conc. Vat. D. B. 1876, Cost. "De fide Cath.", cap. II, De revelatione).

Anzi la mente umana qualche volta può trovare difficoltà anche nel formarsi un giudizio certo di credibilità circa la fede cattolica, benché da Dio siano stati disposti tanti e mirabili segni esterni, per cui anche con la sola luce naturale della ragione si può provare con certezza l'origine divina della religione cristiana. L'uomo infatti, sia perché guidato da pregiudizi, sia perché istigato da passioni e da cattiva volontà , non solo può negare la chiara evidenza dei segni esterni, ma anche resistere alle ispirazioni che Dio infonde nelle nostre anime.

Chiunque osservi il mondo odierno, che è fuori dell'ovile di Cristo, facilmente potrà vedere le principali vie per le quali i dotti si sono incamminati. Alcuni, senza prudenza né discernimento, ammettono e fanno valere per origine di tutte le cose il sistema evoluzionistico, pur non essendo esso indiscutibilmente provato nel campo stesso delle scienze naturali, e con temerarietà sostengono l'ipotesi monistica e panteistica dell'universo soggetto a continua evoluzione. Di quest’ipotesi volentieri si servono i fautori del comunismo per farsi difensori e propagandisti del loro materialismo dialettico e togliere dalle menti ogni nozione di Dio.

Le false affermazioni di siffatto evoluzionismo, per cui viene ripudiato quanto vi è di assoluto, fermo ed immutabile, hanno preparato la strada alle aberrazioni di una nuova filosofia che, facendo concorrenza all'idealismo, all'immanentismo e al pragmatismo, ha preso il nome di "esistenzialismo" perché, ripudiate le essenze immutabili delle cose, si preoccupa solo della "esistenza" dei singoli individui.

Si aggiunge a ciò un falso "storicismo" che si attiene solo agli eventi della vita umana e rovina le fondamenta di qualsiasi verità e legge assoluta sia nel campo della filosofia, sia in quello dei dogmi cristiani.

In tanta confusione di opinioni, Ci reca un po' di consolazione il vedere coloro che un tempo erano stati educati nei principî del razionalismo, ritornare oggi, non di rado, alle sorgenti della verità rivelata, e riconoscere e professare la parola di Dio, conservata nella Sacra Scrittura, come fondamento della Teologia. Nello stesso tempo però reca dispiacere il fatto che non pochi di essi, quanto più fermamente aderiscono alla parola di Dio, tanto più sminuiscono il valore della ragione umana, e quanto più volentieri innalzano l'autorità di Dio Rivelatore, tanto più aspramente disprezzano il Magistero della Chiesa, istituito da Cristo Signore per custodire e interpretare le verità rivelate da Dio. Questo disprezzo non solo è in aperta contraddizione con la Sacra Scrittura, ma si manifesta falso anche con la stessa esperienza. Poiché frequentemente gli stessi "dissidenti" si lamentano in pubblico della discordia che regna fra di loro nel campo dogmatico, cosicché, pur senza volerlo, riconoscono la necessità di un vivo Magistero.

Ora queste tendenze, che più o meno deviano dalla retta strada, non possono essere ignorate o trascurate dai filosofi e dai teologi cattolici, che hanno il grave còmpito di difendere le verità divine ed umane e di farle penetrare nelle menti degli uomini. Anzi, essi devono conoscere bene queste opinioni, sia perché le malattie non si possono curare se prima non sono bene conosciute, sia perché qualche volta nelle stesse false affermazioni si nasconde un po' di verità , sia infine, perché gli stessi errori spingono la mente nostra a investigare e a scrutare con più diligenza alcune verità sia filosofiche che teologiche.

Se i nostri cultori di filosofia e di teologia da queste dottrine, esaminate con cautela, cercassero solo di cogliere i detti frutti, non vi sarebbe motivo perché il Magistero della Chiesa avesse a interloquire. Ma, benché Noi sappiamo bene che gli insegnanti e i dotti cattolici in genere si guardano da tali errori, è noto però che non mancano nemmeno oggi, come ai tempi apostolici, coloro che, amanti più del conveniente delle novità e timorosi di essere ritenuti ignoranti delle scoperte fatte dalla scienza in quest'epoca di progresso, cercano di sottrarsi alla direzione del sacro Magistero e perciò sono nel pericolo di allontanarsi insensibilmente dalle verità Rivelate e di trarre in errore anche gli altri.

Si nota poi un altro pericolo, e tanto più grave, perché si copre maggiormente con l'apparenza della virtù. Molti, deplorando la discordia e la confusione che regna nelle menti umane, mossi da uno zelo imprudente e spinti da uno slancio e da un grande desiderio di rompere i confini con cui sono fra loro divisi i buoni e gli onesti; essi abbracciano perciò una specie di "irenismo" che, omesse le questioni che dividono gli uomini, non cerca solamente di ricacciare, con unità di forze, l'irrompente ateismo, ma anche di conciliare le opposte posizioni nel campo stesso dogmatico.

E come un tempo vi furono coloro che si domandavano se l'apologetica tradizionale della Chiesa costituisse più un ostacolo che un aiuto per guadagnare le anime a Cristo, cosi oggi non mancano coloro che osano arrivare fino al punto di proporre seriamente la questione, se la teologia e il suo metodo, come sono in uso nelle scuole con l'approvazione dell'autorità ecclesiastica, non solo debbano essere perfezionate, ma anche completamente riformate, affinché si possa propagare con più efficacia il regno di Cristo in tutto il mondo, fra gli uomini di qualsiasi cultura o di qualsiasi opinione religiosa.

Se essi non avessero altro intento che quello di rendere, con qualche innovazione, la scienza ecclesiastica e il suo metodo più adatti alle odierne condizioni e necessità , non ci sarebbe quasi motivo di temere; ma alcuni, infuocati da un imprudente "irenismo", sembrano ritenere un ostacolo al ristabilimento dell'unità fraterna, quanto si fonda sulle leggi e sui principî stessi dati da Cristo e sulle istituzioni da Lui fondate, o quanto costituisce la difesa e il sostegno dell'integrità della fede, crollate le quali, tutto viene sì unificato, ma soltanto nella comune rovina.

Queste opinioni, provenienti da deplorevole desiderio di novità o anche da lodevoli motivi, non sempre vengono proposte con la medesima gradazione, con la medesima chiarezza o con i medesimi termini, né sempre i sostenitori di esse sono pienamente d'accordo fra loro; ciò che viene oggi insegnato da qualcuno più copertamente con alcune cautele e distinzioni, domani da altri, più audaci, viene proposto pubblicamente e senza limitazioni, con scandalo di molti, specialmente del giovane clero, e con detrimento dell'autorità ecclesiastica. Se di solito si usa più cautela nelle pubblicazioni stampate, di questi argomenti si tratta con maggiore libertà negli opuscoli distribuiti in privato, nelle lezioni dattilografate e nelle adunanze. Queste opinioni non vengono divulgate solo fra i membri del clero secolare e regolare, nei seminari e negli istituti religiosi, ma anche fra i laici, specialmente fra quelli che si dedicano all'educazione e all'istruzione della gioventù.

Per quanto riguarda la Teologia, certuni intendono ridurre al massimo il significato dei dogmi; liberare lo stesso dogma dal modo di esprimersi, già da tempo usato nella Chiesa, e dai concetti filosofici in vigore presso i dottori cattolici, per ritornare nell'esporre la dottrina cattolica, alle espressioni usate dalla Sacra Scrittura e dai Santi Padri. Essi così sperano che il dogma, spogliato degli elementi estrinseci, come essi dicono, alla divina rivelazione, possa venire con frutto paragonato alle opinioni dogmatiche di coloro che sono separati dalla Chiesa e in questo modo si possa pian piano arrivare all'assimilazione del dogma con le opinioni dei dissidenti. Inoltre, ridotta in tali condizioni la dottrina cattolica, pensano di aprire cosi la via attraverso la quale arrivare, dando soddisfazione alle odierne necessità , a poter esprimere i dogmi con le categorie della filosofia odierna, sia dell'immanentismo, sia dell'idealismo, sia dell'esistenzialismo o di qualsiasi altro sistema.

E perciò taluni, più audaci, sostengono che ciò possa, anzi debba farsi, perché i misteri della fede, essi affermano, non possono mai esprimersi con concetti adeguatamente veri, ma solo con concetti approssimativi e sempre mutevoli, con i quali la verità viene in un certo qual modo manifestata, ma necessariamente anche deformata. Perciò ritengono non assurdo, ma del tutto necessario che la teologia, in conformità ai vari sistemi filosofici di cui essa nel corso dei tempi si serve come strumenti, sostituisca nuovi concetti agli antichi; cosicché in modi diversi, e sotto certi aspetti anche opposti, ma come essi dicono equivalenti, esponga al modo umano le medesime verità divine. Aggiungono poi che la storia dei dogmi consiste nell'esporre le varie forme di cui si è rivestita successivamente la verità rivelata, secondo le diverse dottrine e le diverse opinioni che sono sorte nel corso dei secoli.

Da quanto abbiamo detto è chiaro che queste tendenze non solo conducono al relativismo dogmatico, ma di fatto già lo contengono; questo relativismo e poi fin troppo favorito dal disprezzo verso la dottrina tradizionale e verso i termini con cui essa si esprime. Tutti sanno che le espressioni di tali concetti, usate sia nelle scuole sia dal Magistero della Chiesa, possono venir migliorate e perfezionate; è inoltre noto che la Chiesa non è stata sempre costante nell'uso di quelle medesime parole. È chiaro pure che la Chiesa non può essere legata ad un qualunque effimero sistema filosofico; ma quelle nozioni e quei termini, che con generale consenso furono composti attraverso parecchi secoli dai dottori cattolici per arrivare a qualche conoscenza e comprensione del dogma, senza dubbio non poggiano su di un fondamento così caduco. Si appoggiano invece a principî e nozioni dedotte da una vera conoscenza del creato; e nel dedurre queste conoscenze, la verità rivelata, come una stella, ha illuminato per mezzo della Chiesa la mente umana. Perciò non c'è da meravigliarsi se qualcuna di queste nozioni non solo sia stata adoperata in Concili Ecumenici, ma vi abbia ricevuto tale sanzione per cui non ci è lecito allontanarcene.

Per tali ragioni, è massima imprudenza il trascurare o respingere o privare del loro valore i concetti e le espressioni che da persone di non comune ingegno e santità , sotto la vigilanza del sacro Magistero e non senza illuminazione e guida dello Spirito Santo, sono state più volte con lavoro secolare trovate e perfezionate per esprimere sempre più accuratamente le verità della fede, e sostituirvi nozioni ipotetiche ed espressioni fluttuanti e vaghe della nuova filosofia, le quali, a somiglianza dell'erba dei campi, oggi vi sono e domani seccano; a questo modo si rende lo stesso dogma simile a una canna agitata dal vento. Il disprezzo delle parole e delle nozioni usate dai teologi scolastici, di per sé conduce all'indebolimento della teologia speculativa, che essi ritengono priva di una vera certezza in quanto si fonda sulle ragioni teologiche.

Purtroppo questi amatori delle novità facilmente passano dal disprezzo della teologia scolastica allo spregio verso lo stesso Magistero della Chiesa che ha dato, con la sua autorità , una cosi notevole approvazione a quella teologia. Questo Magistero viene da costoro fatto apparire come un impedimento al progresso e un ostacolo per la scienza; da alcuni acattolici poi viene considerato come un freno, ormai ingiusto, con cui alcuni teologi più colti verrebbero trattenuti dal rinnovare la loro scienza. E benché questo sacro Magistero debba essere per qualsiasi teologo, in materia di fede e di costumi, la norma prossima e universale di verità (in quanto ad esso Cristo Signore ha affidato il deposito della fede - cioè la Sacra Scrittura e la Tradizione divina - per essere custodito, difeso ed interpretato, tuttavia viene alle volte ignorato, come se non esistesse, il dovere che hanno i fedeli di rifuggire pure da quegli errori che in maggiore o minore misura s'avvicinano all'eresia, e quindi "di osservare anche le costituzioni e i decreti. con cui queste false opinioni vengono dalla Santa Sede proscritte e proibite" (Corp. Jur. Can., can. 1324; Cfr. Conc. Vat. D. B. 1820, Cost. "De fide cath.", cap. 4, De fide et ratione, post canones).

Quanto viene esposto nelle Encicliche dei Sommi Pontefici circa il carattere e la costituzione della Chiesa, viene da certuni, di proposito e abitualmente, trascurato con lo scopo di far prevalere un concetto vago che essi dicono preso dagli antichi Padri, specialmente greci. I Pontefici infatti - essi vanno dicendo - non intendono dare un giudizio sulle questioni che sono oggetto di disputa tra i teologi; è quindi necessario ritornare alle fonti primitive, e con gli scritti degli antichi si devono spiegare le costituzioni e i decreti del Magistero.

Queste affermazioni vengono fatte forse con eleganza di stile; però esse non mancano di falsità . Infatti è vero che generalmente i Pontefici lasciano liberi i teologi in quelle questioni che, in vario senso, sono soggette a discussioni fra i dotti di miglior fama; però la storia insegna che parecchie questioni, che prima erano oggetto di libera disputa, in seguito non potevano più essere discusse.

Né si deve ritenere che gli insegnamenti delle Encicliche non richiedano, per sé, il nostro assenso, col pretesto che i Pontefici non vi esercitano il potere del loro Magistero Supremo.

Infatti questi insegnamenti sono del Magistero ordinario, di cui valgono poi le parole: "Chi ascolta voi, ascolta me" ( Luc. X, 16 ); e per lo più, quanto viene proposto e inculcato nelle Encicliche, è già per altre ragioni patrimonio della dottrina cattolica. Se poi i Sommi Pontefici nei loro atti emanano di proposito una sentenza in materia finora controversa, è evidente per tutti che tale questione, secondo l'intenzione e la volontà degli stessi Pontefici, non può più costituire oggetto di libera discussione fra i teologi.

È vero pure che i teologi devono sempre ritornare alle fonti della Rivelazione divina: è infatti loro còmpito indicare come gli insegnamenti del vivo Magistero "si trovino sia esplicitamente sia implicitamente" nella Sacra Scrittura o nella divina tradizione. Inoltre si aggiunga che ambedue le fonti della Rivelazione contengono tali e tanti tesori di verità da non potersi mai, di fatto, esaurire. Le scienze sacre con lo studio delle sacre fonti ringiovaniscono sempre; al contrario, diventa sterile, come sappiamo dall’esperienza, la speculazione che trascura la ricerca del sacro deposito. Ma per questo motivo la teologia, anche quella positiva, non può essere equiparata ad una scienza solamente storica. Dio insieme a queste sacre fonti ha dato alla sua Chiesa il vivo Magistero, anche per illustrare e svolgere quelle verità che sono contenute nel deposito della fede soltanto oscuramente e come implicitamente. E il divin Redentore non ha mai dato questo deposito, per l'autentica interpretazione, né ai singoli fedeli, né agli stessi teologi, ma solo al Magistero della Chiesa. Se poi la Chiesa esercita questo suo officio (come nel corso dei secoli è spesso avvenuto) con l'esercizio sia ordinario che straordinario di questo medesimo officio, è evidente che è del tutto falso il metodo con cui si vorrebbe spiegare le cose chiare con quelle oscure; anzi è necessario che tutti seguano l'ordine inverso. Perciò il Nostro Predecessore di imperitura memoria Pio IX, mentre insegnava che è còmpito nobilissimo della teologia quello di mostrare come una dottrina definita dalla Chiesa è contenuta nelle fonti, non senza grave motivo aggiungeva le seguenti parole: "in quello stesso senso, con cui è stata definita dalla Chiesa".

II

Ritorniamo ora alle teorie nuove, di cui abbiamo parlato prima: da alcuni vengono proposte o istillate nella mente diverse opinioni che sminuiscono l'autorità divina della Sacra Scrittura. Con audacia alcuni pervertono il senso delle parole del Concilio Vaticano con cui si definisce che Dio è l’Autore della Sacra Scrittura, e rinnovano la sentenza, già più volte condannata, secondo cui l'inerranza della Sacra Scrittura si estenderebbe soltanto a ciò che riguarda Dio stesso o la religione e la morale.

Anzi falsamente parlano di un senso umano della Bibbia, sotto il quale sarebbe nascosto il senso divino, che è, come essi dichiarano, il solo infallibile. Nell'interpretazione della Sacra Scrittura essi non vogliono tener conto dell'analogia della fede e della tradizione della Chiesa; in modo che la dottrina dei Santi Padri e del Magistero dovrebbe essere misurata con quella della Sacra Scrittura, spiegata, però, dagli esegeti in modo puramente umano; e non piuttosto la Sacra Scrittura esposta secondo la mente della Chiesa, che da Cristo Signore è stata costituita custode e interprete di tutto il deposito delle verità rivelate.

Inoltre il senso letterale della Sacra Scrittura e la sua spiegazione elaborata, sotto la vigilanza della Chiesa, da tali e tanti esegeti, dovrebbe, secondo le loro false opinioni, cedere il posto ad una nuova esegesi, chiamata simbolica e spirituale; secondo quest’esegesi i libri del Vecchio Testamento, che oggi nella Chiesa sono una fonte chiusa e nascosta, verrebbero finalmente aperti a tutti. In questo modo - essi affermano - svaniscono tutte le difficoltà alle quali vanno incontro soltanto coloro che si attengono al senso letterale delle Scritture.

Tutti vedono quanto tutte queste opinioni si allontanino dai principi e dalle norme ermeneutiche giustamente stabilite dai Nostri Predecessori di felice memoria: da Leone XIII nell'Enciclica "Providentissimus Deus", da Benedetto XV nell'Enciclica "Spiritus Paraclitus", come pure da Noi stessi nell'Enciclica "Divino afflante Spiritu".

Non deve recare meraviglia che tali novità in quasi tutte le parti della teologia abbiano prodotto i loro velenosi frutti. Si mette in dubbio che la ragione umana, senza l'aiuto della divina Rivelazione e della grazia, possa dimostrare con argomenti dedotti dalle cose create, l'esistenza di un Dio personale; si afferma che il mondo non ha avuto inizio e che la creazione del mondo è necessaria, perché procede dalla necessaria liberalità del divino amore; così pure si afferma che Dio non ha prescienza eterna ed infallibile delle libere azioni dell'uomo: tutte opinioni contrarie alle dichiarazioni del Concilio Vaticano ( Cfr. Conc. Vat. Cost. "De fide cath.", cap. 1: De Deo rerum omnium creatore ).

Da alcuni poi si mette in discussione se gli angeli siano persone; se vi sia una differenza essenziale fra la materia e lo spirito. Altri snaturano il concetto della gratuità dell'ordine sovrannaturale, quando sostengono che Dio non può creare esseri intelligenti senza ordinarli e chiamarli alla visione beatifica. Né basta; poiché, messe da parte le definizioni del Concilio di Trento, viene distrutto il vero concetto di peccato originale e insieme quello di peccato in genere, in quanto offesa di Dio, come pure quello di soddisfazione data per noi da Cristo. Né mancano coloro che sostengono che la dottrina della transustanziazione, in quanto fondata su un concetto antiquato di sostanza, deve essere corretta in modo da ridurre la presenza reale di Cristo nell'Eucaristia ad un simbolismo, per cui le specie consacrate non sarebbero altro che segni efficaci della presenza di Cristo e della sua intima unione nel Corpo mistico con i membri fedeli.

Certuni non si ritengono legati alla dottrina che Noi abbiamo esposta in una Nostra Enciclica e che è fondata sulle fonti della Rivelazione, secondo cui il Corpo mistico di Cristo e la Chiesa cattolica romana sono una sola identica cosa. Alcuni riducono ad una vana formula la necessità di appartenere alla vera Chiesa per ottenere l'eterna salute. Altri infine non ammettono il carattere razionale dei segni di credibilità della fede cristiana.

È noto che questi errori, ed altri del genere, serpeggiano in mezzo ad alcuni Nostri figli, tratti in inganno da uno zelo imprudente o da una scienza di falso conio; e a questi figli sono costretti a ripetere, con animo addolorato, verità notissime ed errori manifesti, indicando loro con ansietà i pericoli dell'errore.

III

Tutti sanno quanto la Chiesa apprezzi il valore della ragione umana, alla quale spetta il còmpito di dimostrare con certezza l’esistenza di un solo Dio personale, di dimostrare invincibilmente per mezzo dei segni divini i fondamenti della stessa fede cristiana; di porre inoltre rettamente in luce la legge che il Creatore ha impressa nelle anime degli uomini; ed infine il còmpito di raggiungere una conoscenza limitata, ma utilissima, dei misteri (Cfr. Conc. Vat. D. B. 1796).

Ma questo còmpito potrà essere assolto convenientemente e con sicurezza, se la ragione sarà debitamente coltivata: se cioè essa verrà nutrita di quella sana filosofia che è come un patrimonio ereditato dalle precedenti età cristiane e che possiede una più alta autorità , perché lo stesso Magistero della Chiesa ha messo al confronto con la verità rivelata i suoi principî e le sue principali asserzioni, messe in luce e fissate lentamente attraverso i tempi da uomini di grande ingegno. Questa stessa filosofia, confermata e comunemente ammessa dalla Chiesa, difende il genuino valore della cognizione umana, gli incrollabili principî della metafisica cioè di ragion sufficiente, di causalità e di finalità ed infine sostiene che si può raggiungere la verità certa ed immutabile.

In questa filosofia vi sono certamente parecchie cose che non riguardano la fede e i costumi, né direttamente né indirettamente, e che perciò la Chiesa lascia alla libera discussione dei competenti in materia; ma non vi è la medesima libertà riguardo a parecchie altre, specialmente riguardo ai principî ed alle principali asserzioni di cui già parlammo. Anche in tali questioni essenziali si può dare alla filosofia una veste più conveniente e più ricca; si può rafforzare la stessa filosofia con espressioni più efficaci, spogliarla di certi mezzi scolastici meno adatti, arricchirla anche - però con prudenza - di certi elementi che sono frutto del progressivo lavoro della mente umana; però non si deve mai sovvertirla o contaminarla con falsi principî, né stimarla solo come un grande monumento, sì, ma archeologico. La verità in ogni sua manifestazione filosofica non può essere soggetta a quotidiani mutamenti specialmente trattandosi dei principî per sé noti della ragione umana o di quelle asserzioni che poggiano tanto sulla sapienza dei secoli che sul consenso e sul fondamento anche della Rivelazione divina. Qualsiasi verità la mente umana con sincera ricerca ha potuto scoprire, non può essere in contrasto con la verità già acquisita; perché Dio, Somma Verità , ha creato e regge l'intelletto umano non affinché alle verità rettamente acquisite ogni giorno esso ne contrapponga altre nuove; ma affinché,, rimossi gli errori che eventualmente vi si fossero insinuati, aggiunga verità a verità nel medesimo ordine e con la medesima organicità con cui vediamo costituita la natura stessa delle cose da cui la verità si attinge. Per tale ragione il cristiano, sia egli filosofo o teologo, non abbraccia con precipitazione e leggerezza tutte le novità che ogni giorno vengono escogitate, ma le deve esaminare con la massima diligenza e le deve porre su una giusta bilancia per non perdere la verità già conquistata o corromperla, certamente con pericolo e danno della fede stessa.

Se si considera bene quanto sopra è stato esposto, facilmente apparirà chiaro il motivo per cui la Chiesa esige che i futuri sacerdoti siano istruiti nelle scienze filosofiche "secondo il metodo, la dottrina e i principi del Dottor Angelico" (Corp. Jur. Can., can. 1366, 2), giacché, come ben sappiamo dall'esperienza di parecchi secoli, il metodo dell'Aquinate si distingue per singolare superiorità tanto nell'ammaestrare gli animi che nella ricerca della verità ; la sua dottrina poi è in armonia con la Rivelazione divina ed è molto efficace per mettere al sicuro i fondamenti della fede come pure per cogliere con utilità e sicurezza i frutti di un sano progresso ( A. A. S. vol. XXXVIII, 1946, p. 387 ).

Perciò è quanto mai da deplorarsi che oggi la filosofia confermata ed ammessa dalla Chiesa sia oggetto di disprezzo da parte di certuni, talché essi con imprudenza la dichiarano antiquata per la forma e razionalistica per il processo di pensiero. Vanno dicendo che questa nostra filosofia difende erroneamente l'opinione che si possa dare una metafisica vera in modo assoluto; mentre al contrario essi sostengono che le verità , specialmente quelle trascendenti, non possono venire espresse più convenientemente che per mezzo di dottrine disparate che si completano tra loro, benché siano in certo modo l'una all'altra opposte. Perciò la filosofia scolastica con la sua lucida esposizione e soluzione delle questioni, con la sua accurata determinazione dei concetti e le sue chiare distinzioni, può essere utile - essi concedono - come preparazione allo studio della teologia scolastica, molto bene adattata alla mentalità degli uomini medievali; ma non può darci - aggiungono - un metodo ed un indirizzo filosofico che risponda alle necessità della nostra cultura moderna. Oppongono, inoltre, che la filosofia perenne non è che la filosofia delle essenze immutabili, mentre la mentalità moderna deve interessarsi della "esistenza" dei singoli individui e della vita sempre in divenire.

Però, mentre disprezzano questa filosofia, esaltano le altre, sia antiche che recenti, sia di popoli orientali che di quelli occidentali, in modo che sembrano voler insinuare che tutte le filosofie o opinioni, con l'aggiunta - se necessario - di qualche correzione o di qualche complemento, si possono conciliare con il dogma cattolico. Ma nessun cattolico può mettere in dubbio quanto tutto ciò sia falso, specialmente quando si tratti di sistemi come l'immanentismo, l'idealismo, il materialismo, sia storico che dialettico, o anche come l'esistenzialismo, quando esso professa l'ateismo o quando nega il valore del ragionamento nel campo della metafisica.

Infine alla filosofia delle nostre scuole essi fanno questo rimprovero: che essa nel processo del pensiero bada solo all'intelletto e trascura la funzione della volontà e del sentimento. Ciò non corrisponde a verità . La filosofia cristiana non ha mai negato l'utilità e l'efficacia che hanno le buone disposizioni di tutta l'anima per conoscere ed abbracciare le verità religiose e morali; anzi, ha sempre insegnato che la mancanza di tali disposizioni può essere la causa per cui l'intelletto, sotto l'influsso delle passioni e della cattiva volontà , venga cosi oscurato da non poter rettamente vedere. Di più, il Dottor Comune ritiene che l'intelletto possa in qualche modo percepire i beni di grado superiore dell'ordine morale sia naturale che soprannaturale, in quanto esso esperimenta nell'ultimo una certa "connaturalità " sia essa naturale, sia frutto della grazia, con i medesimi beni (Cfr. S. Thom., Summa Theol. IIa IIæ, quæst. I, art. 4 ad 3; et quæst. 45, art. 2, in c.); ed è chiaro quanto questa, sia pur subcosciente, conoscenza possa essere di aiuto alla ragione nelle sue ricerche. Ma altro è riconoscere il potere che hanno la volontà e le disposizioni dell'animo di aiutare la ragione a raggiungere una conoscenza più certa e più salda delle verità morali, ed altro in quanto vanno sostenendo quei tali novatori: cioè che la volontà e il sentimento hanno un certo potere intuitivo e che l'uomo, non potendo col ragionamento discernere con certezza ciò che dovrebbe abbracciare come vero, si volge alla volontà , per cui egli possa compiere una libera risoluzione ed elezione fra opposte opinioni, mescolando malamente così la conoscenza e l'atto della volontà .

Non c'è da meravigliarsi che con queste nuove opinioni siano messe in pericolo le due scienze filosofiche che, per natura loro, sono strettamente collegate con gli insegnamenti della fede, cioè la teodicea e l'etica; essi ritengono che la funzione di queste non sia quella di dimostrare con certezza qualche verità riguardante Dio o altro ente trascendente, ma piuttosto quella di mostrare come siano perfettamente coerenti con le necessità della vita le verità che la fede insegna riguardo a Dio, Essere personale, e ai suoi precetti, e che perciò devono essere accettate da tutti per evitare la disperazione e per ottener l'eterna salvezza. Tutte queste affermazioni e opinioni sono apertamente contrarie ai documenti dei Nostri Predecessori Leone XIII e Pio X, e sono inconciliabili con i decreti del Concilio Vaticano.

Sarebbe veramente inutile deplorare queste aberrazioni, se tutti, anche nel campo filosofico, fossero ossequienti con la debita venerazione verso il Magistero della Chiesa, che per istituzione divina ha la missione non solo di custodire e interpretare il deposito della Rivelazione, ma anche di vigilare sulle stesse scienze filosofiche perché i dogmi cattolici non abbiano a ricevere alcun danno da opinioni non rette.

IV

Rimane ora da parlare di quelle questioni che, pur appartenendo alle scienze positive, sono più o meno connesse con le verità della fede cristiana. Non pochi chiedono instantemente che la religione cattolica tenga massimo conto di quelle scienze. Il che è senza dubbio cosa lodevole, quando si tratta di fatti realmente dimostrati; ma bisogna andar cauti quando si tratta piuttosto di ipotesi, benché in qualche modo fondate scientificamente, nelle quali si tocca la dottrina contenuta nella Sacra Scrittura o anche nella tradizione. Se tali ipotesi vanno direttamente o indirettamente contro la dottrina rivelata, non possono ammettersi in alcun modo.

Per queste ragioni il Magistero della Chiesa non proibisce che in conformità dell'attuale stato delle scienze e della teologia, sia oggetto di ricerche e di discussioni, da parte dei competenti in tutti e due i campi, la dottrina dell'evoluzionismo, in quanto cioè essa fa ricerche sull'origine del corpo umano, che proverrebbe da materia organica preesistente (la fede cattolica ci obbliga a ritenere che le anime sono state create immediatamente sia Dio). Però questo deve essere fatto in tale modo che le ragioni delle due opinioni, cioè di quella favorevole e di quella contraria all'evoluzionismo, siano ponderate e giudicate con la necessaria serietà , moderazione e misura e purché tutti siano pronti a sottostare al giudizio della Chiesa, alla quale Cristo ha affidato l'ufficio di interpretare autenticamente la Sacra Scrittura e di difendere i dogmi della fede (Cfr. Allocuzione Pont. ai membri dell'Accademia delle Scienze, 30 novembre 1941; A. A. S. Vol. , p. 506). Però alcuni oltrepassano questa libertà di discussione, agendo in modo come fosse già dimostrata con totale certezza la stessa origine del corpo umano dalla materia organica preesistente, valendosi di dati indiziali finora raccolti e di ragionamenti basati sui medesimi indizi; e ciò come se nelle fonti della divina Rivelazione non vi fosse nulla che esiga in questa materia la più grande moderazione e cautela.

Però quando si tratta dell'altra ipotesi, cioè del poligenismo, allora i figli della Chiesa non godono affatto della medesima libertà . I fedeli non possono abbracciare quell'opinione i cui assertori insegnano che dopo Adamo sono esistiti qui sulla terra veri uomini che non hanno avuto origine, per generazione naturale, dal medesimo come da progenitore di tutti gli uomini, oppure che Adamo rappresenta l'insieme di molti progenitori; non appare in nessun modo come queste affermazioni si possano accordare con quanto le fonti della Rivelazione e gli atti del Magistero della Chiesa ci insegnano circa il peccato originale, che proviene da un peccato veramente commesso da Adamo individualmente e personalmente, e che, trasmesso a tutti per generazione, è inerente in ciascun uomo come suo proprio (cfr. Rom. V, 12-19; Conc. Trident., sess. V, can. 1-4).

V

Come nelle scienze biologiche ed antropologiche, cosi pure in quelle storiche vi sono coloro che audacemente oltrepassano i limiti e le cautele stabilite dalla Chiesa. In modo particolare si deve deplorare un certo sistema di interpretazione troppo libera dei libri storici del Vecchio Testamento; i fautori di questo sistema, per difendere le loro idee, a torto si riferiscono alla Lettera che non molto tempo fa è stata inviata all'arcivescovo di Parigi dalla Pontificia Commissione per gli Studi Biblici (16 gennaio 1948; A. A. S., vol. XL, pp. 45-48).

Questa Lettera infatti fa notare che gli undici primi capitoli del Genesi, benché propriamente parlando non concordino con il metodo storico usato dai migliori autori greci e latini o dai competenti del nostro tempo, tuttavia appartengono al genere storico in un vero senso, che però deve essere maggiormente studiato e determinato dagli esegeti; i medesimi capitoli - fa ancora notare la Lettera - con parlare semplice e metaforico, adatto alla mentalità di un popolo poco civile, riferiscono sia le principali verità che sono fondamentali per la nostra salvezza, sia anche una narrazione popolare dell'origine del genere umano e del popolo eletto.

Se qualche cosa gli antichi agiografi hanno preso da narrazioni popolari ( il che può essere concesso ), non bisogna mai dimenticare che hanno fatto questo con l'aiuto dell'ispirazione divina, che nella scelta e nella valutazione di quei documenti li ha premuniti da ogni errore. Quindi le narrazioni popolari inserite nelle Sacre Scritture non possono affatto essere poste sullo stesso piano delle mitologie o simili, le quali sono frutto più di un'accesa fantasia che di quell'amore alla verità e alla semplicità che risalta talmente nei Libri Sacri, anche del Vecchio Testamento, da dover affermare che i nostri agiografi son palesemente superiori agli antichi scrittori profani.

Veramente Noi sappiamo che la maggioranza dei dottori cattolici, dei cui studi raccolgono i frutti gli Atenei, i Seminari e i Collegi dei religiosi, sono lontani da quegli errori che apertamente o di nascosto oggi vengono divulgati, sia per smania di novità , sia anche per una non moderata intenzione di apostolato. Ma sappiamo anche che queste nuove opinioni possono fai presa tra le persone imprudenti; quindi preferiamo porvi rimedio sugli inizi, piuttosto che somministrare la medicina quando la malattia è ormai invecchiata.

Per questo motivo, dopo matura riflessione e considerazione, per non venir meno al Nostro sacro dovere, ordiniamo ai Vescovi e ai Superiori Generali degli Ordini e Congregazioni religiose, onerata in maniera gravissima la loro coscienza, di curare con ogni diligenza che opinioni di tal genere non siano sostenute nelle scuole o nelle adunanze e conferenze, né con scritti di qualsiasi genere e nemmeno sans insegnate, in qualsivoglia maniera, ai chierici o ai fedeli.

Gli insegnanti degli Istituti ecclesiastici sappiano che essi non possono esercitare con tranquilla coscienza l'ufficio di insegnare che è stato loro affidato, se non accettano religiosamente le norme che abbiamo stabilite e non le osservano esattamente nell'insegnamento delle loro materie. Quella doverosa venerazione ed obbedienza che nel loro assiduo lavoro devono professare verso il Magistero della Chiesa le infondano anche nella mente e nell'anima dei loro scolari.

Conclusione

Cerchiamo con ogni sforzo e con passione di concorrere al progresso delle scienze che insegnano; ma si guardino anche dall'oltrepassare i confini da Noi stabiliti per la difesa della fede e della dottrina cattolica. Alle nuove questioni, che la cultura moderna e il progresso hanno fatto diventare di attualità , diano l'apporto delle loro accuratissime ricerche, ma con la conveniente prudenza e cautela; infine, non abbiano a credere, per un falso "irenismo", che si possa ottenere un felice ritorno nel seno della Chiesa dei dissidenti e degli erranti, se non si insegna a tutti, sinceramente, tutta la verità in vigore nella Chiesa, senza alcuna corruzione e senza alcuna diminuzione.

Fondati su questa speranza, che sarà aumentata dalla vostra pastorale solerzia, come auspicio dei celesti doni e segno della Nostra paterna benevolenza, impartiamo di gran cuore a voi tutti singolarmente, come al clero e al popolo vostri, l'apostolica Benedizione.

Dato a Roma, presso San Pietro, il giorno 22 del mese di Agosto dell'anno 1950, XII del Nostro Pontificato.

PIO PP. XII

   

HOLY FATHER PIUS XII

Servant of the servants of God

ENCYCLICAL

HUMANI GENERIS

TO OUR VENERABLE BRETHREN,
PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES,
ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS,
AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
ENJOYING PEACE AND
COMMUNION WITH THE HOLY SEE

CONCERNING SOME FALSE OPINIONS
THREATENING TO UNDERMINE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

Venerable Brethren,
Greetings and Apostolic Benediction

Introduction

Disagreement and error among men on moral and religious matters have always been a cause of profound sorrow to all good men, but above all to the true and loyal sons of the Church, especially today, when we see the principles of Catholic culture being attacked on all sides.

2. It is not surprising that such discord and error should always have existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely speaking, human reason by its own natural force and light can arrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by His providence watches over and governs the world, and also of the natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts, still there are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful.

3. It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present condition of the human race, may be known by all mean readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error.[1]

4. Furthermore the human intelligence sometimes experiences difficulties in forming a judgment about the credibility of the Catholic faith, notwithstanding the many wonderful external signs God has given, which are sufficient to prove with certitude by the natural light of reason alone the divine origin of the Catholic religion. For man can, whether from prejudice or passion or bad faith, refuse and resist not only the evidence of the external proofs that are available, but also the impulses of actual grace.

5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Catholic fold, he will easily discover the principle trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all things, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribe to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

7. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Catholic dogmas.

8. In all this confusion of opinion it is some consolation to Us to see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly they accept the word of God, so much the more do they diminish the value of human reason, and the more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.

9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally, because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.

10. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings, try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.

11. Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an "eirenism" according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.

12. Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent "eirenism" seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.

13. These new opinions, whether they originate from a reprehensible desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not always advanced in the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same terms, nor always with unanimous agreement of their authors. Theories that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions and distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed by others more audacious, causing scandal to many, especially among the young clergy and to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves more openly in their writings intended for private circulation and in conferences and lectures. Moreover, these opinions are disseminated not only among members of the clergy and in seminaries and religious institutions, but also among the laity, and especially among those who are engaged in teaching youth.

14. In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

15. Moreover, they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that his can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

16. It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.

17. Hence to neglect, or to reject,or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.

18. Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non-Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith - Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,"[2] is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.

19. Although these things seem well said, still they are not free form error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

21. It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.[4] Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so many rich treasures of truth, that they can really never be exhausted. Hence it is that theology through the study of its sacred sources remains ever fresh; on the other hand, speculation which neglects a deeper search into the deposit of faith, proves sterile, as we know from experience. But for this reason even positive theology cannot be on a par with merely historical science. For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or in the extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed, the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: "in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church."

22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.

23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis of the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.

24. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical "Providentissimus Deus," and Benedict XV in the Encyclical "Spiritus Paraclitus," as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu."

25. It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowledge of the free actions of men - all this in contradiction to the decrees of the Vatican Council.[5]

26. Some also question whether angels are personal beings, and whether matter and spirit differ essentially. Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision. Nor is this all. Disregarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very concept of original sin, along with the concept of sin in general as an offense against God, as well as the idea of satisfaction performed for us by Christ. Some even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation, based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be so modified that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would be merely efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful members of His Mystical Body.

27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Catholic faith.

28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error.

29. It is well known how highly the Church regards human reason, for it falls to reason to demonstrate with certainty the existence of God, personal and one; to prove beyond doubt from divine signs the very foundations of the Catholic faith; to express properly the law which the Creator has imprinted in the hearts of men; and finally to attain to some notion, indeed a very fruitful notion, of mysteries.[7] But reason can perform these functions safely and well only when properly trained, that is, when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by earlier Catholic ages, and which moreover possesses an authority of an even higher order, since the Teaching Authority of the Church, in the light of divine revelation itself, has weighed its fundamental tenets, which have been elaborated and defined little by little by men of great genius. For this philosophy, acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality, and finality, and finally the mind's ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth.

30. Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things, especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. However, even in these fundamental questions, we may clothe our philosophy in a more convenient and richer dress, make it more vigorous with a more effective terminology, divest it of certain scholastic aids found less useful, prudently enrich it with the fruits of progress of the human mind. But never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic. For truth and its philosophic expression cannot change from day to day, least of all where there is question of self-evident principles of the human mind or of those propositions which are supported by the wisdom of the ages and by divine revelation. Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth. Let no Catholic therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.

31. If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy "according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor,"[8] since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both of teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony with Divine Revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress.[9]

32. How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and honored by the Church, is scorned by some, who shamelessly call it outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its method of thought. They say that this philosophy upholds the erroneous notion that there can be a metaphysic that is absolutely true; whereas in fact, they say, reality, especially transcendent reality, cannot better be expressed than by disparate teachings, which mutually complete each other, although they are in a way mutually opposed. Our traditional philosophy, then, with its clear exposition and solution of questions, its accurate definition of terms, its clear-cut distinctions, can be, they concede, useful as a preparation for scholastic theology, a preparation quite in accord with medieval mentality; but this philosophy hardly offers a method of philosophizing suited to the needs of our modern culture. They allege, finally, that our perennial philosophy is only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the contemporary mind must look to the existence of things and to life, which is ever in flux. While scorning our philosophy, they extol other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this is, especially where there is question of those fictitious theories they call immanentism, or idealism or materialism, whether historic or dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies the validity of the reason in the field of metaphysics.

33. Finally, they reproach this philosophy taught in our schools for regarding only the intellect in the process of cognition, while neglecting the function of the will and the emotions. This is simply not true. Never has Catholic philosophy denied the usefulness and efficacy of good dispositions of soul for perceiving and embracing moral and religious truths. In fact, it has always taught that the lack of these dispositions of good will can be the reason why the intellect, influenced by the passions and evil inclinations, can be so obscured that it cannot see clearly. Indeed St. Thomas holds that the intellect can in some way perceive higher goods of the moral order, whether natural or supernatural, inasmuch as it experiences a certain "connaturality" with these goods, whether this "connaturality" be purely natural, or the result of grace;[10] and it is clear how much even this somewhat obscure perception can help the reason in its investigations. However it is one thing to admit the power of the dispositions of the will in helping reason to gain a more certain and firm knowledge of moral truths; it is quite another thing to say, as these innovators do, indiscriminately mingling cognition and act of will, that the appetitive and affective faculties have a certain power of understanding, and that man, since he cannot by using his reason decide with certainty what is true and is to be accepted, turns to his will, by which he freely chooses among opposite opinions.

34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions.

35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Catholic faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

40. Truly, we are aware that the majority of Catholic doctors, the fruit of whose studies is being gathered in universities, in seminaries and in the colleges of religious, are far removed from those errors which today, whether through a desire for novelty or through a certain immoderate zeal for the apostolate, are being spread either openly or covertly. But we know also that such new opinions can entice the incautious; and therefore we prefer to withstand the very beginnings rather than to administer the medicine after the disease has grown inveterate.

41. For this reason, after mature reflexion and consideration before God, that We may not be wanting in Our sacred duty, We charge the Bishops and the Superiors General of Religious Orders, binding them most seriously in conscience, to take most diligent care that such opinions be not advanced in schools, in conferences or in writings of any kind, and that they be not taught in any manner whatsoever to the clergy or the faithful.

42. Let the teachers in ecclesiastical institutions be aware that they cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the office of teaching entrusted to them, unless in the instruction of their students they religiously accept and exactly observe the norms which We have ordained. That due reverend and submission which in their unceasing labor they must profess toward the Teaching Authority of the Church, let them instill also into the minds and hearts of their students.

43. Let them strive with every force and effort to further the progress of the sciences which they teach; but let them also be careful not to transgress the limits which We have established for the protection of the truth of Catholic faith and doctrine. With regard to new questions, which modern culture and progress have brought to the foreground, let them engage in most careful research, but with the necessary prudence and caution; finally, let them not think, indulging in a false "irenism," that the dissident and the erring can happily be brought back to the bosom of the Church, if the whole truth found in the Church is not sincerely taught to all without corruption or diminution.

44. Relying on this hope, which will be increased by your pastoral care, as a pledge of celestial gifts and a sign of Our paternal benevolence, We impart with all Our heart to each and all of you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people the Apostolic Benediction.

Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, 12 August 1950, the twelfth year of Our Pontificate. PIUS XII

1. Conc. Vatic. D.B., 1876, Cont. De Fide cath., cap. 2, De revelatione.
2. C.I.C., can 1324; cfr. Conc. Vat., D.B., 1820, Cont. De Fide cath., cap. 4, De Fide et ratione, post canones.
3. Luke, X, 16
4. Pius IX, Inter gravissimas, 28 oct., 1870, Acta, vol. I, p. 260.
5. Cfr. Conc. Vat., Const. De Fide cath., cap. 1, De Deo rerum omnium creatore.
6. Cfr. Litt. Enc. Mystici Corporis Christi, A.A.S., vol. XXXV, p. 193 sq.
7. Cfr. Conc. Vat., D.B., 1796.
8. C. I. C. can. 1366, 2.
9. A.A.S., vol. XXXVIII, 1946, p. 387.
10. Cfr. St. Thom., Summa Theol., II-II, quaest. 1, art. 4 ad 3 et quaest. 45, art. 2, in c.
11. Cfr. Allocut Pont. to the members of the Academy of Science, November 30, 1941: A.A.S., vol. XXXIII, p. 506.
12. Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.
13. January 16, 1948: A.A.S., vol. XL, pp. 45-48.


16 posted on 07/09/2012 3:51:17 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

~ UNAM SANCTAM ~

Bonifatius, Episcopus, Servus servorum Dei. Ad futuram rei memoriam

( Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302 )

   

Unam sanctam ecclesiam catholicam et ipsam apostolicam urgente fide credere cogimur et tenere, nosque hanc frmiter credimus et simpliciter confitemur, extra quam nec salus est, nec remissio peccatorum, sponso in Canticis proclamante: Una est columba mea, perfecta mea. Una est matris suae electa genetrici suae [Cant. 6:9]. Quae unum corpus mysticum repraesentat, cujus caput Christus, Christi vero Deus. In qua unus Dominus, una fides, unum baptisma. Una nempe fuit diluvii tempore arca Noë, unam ecclesiam praefigurans, quae in uno cubito consummata unum, Noë videlicet, gubernatorem habuit et rectorem, extra quam omnia subsistentia super terram legimus fuisse deleta.

Hanc autem veneramur et unicam, dicente Domino in Propheta: Erue a framea, Deus, animam meam et de manu canis unicam meam. [ Psalm 22:20 ] Pro anima enim, id est, pro se ipso, capite simul oravit et corpore. Quod corpus unicam scilicet ecclesiam nominavit, propter sponsi, fidei, sacramentorum et caritatis ecclesiae unitatem. Haec est tunica illa Domini inconsutilis, quae scissa non fuit, sed sorte provenit. [ Blessed Apostle Saint John 19 ]

Igitur ecclesiae unius et unicae unum corpus, unum caput, non duo capita, quasi monstrum, Christus videlicet et Christi vicarius, Petrus, Petrique successor, dicente Domino ipsi Petro: Pasce oves meas. [ Blessed Apostle Saint John 21:17 ] Meas, inquit, generaliter, non singulariter has vel illas: per quod commisisse sibi intelligitur universas. Sive ergo Graeci sive alii se dicant Petro ejusque successoribus non esse commissos: fateantur necesse est, se de ovibus Christi non esse, dicente Domino in Joanne, unum ovile et unicum esse pastorem. [ Blessed Apostle Saint John 10:16 ]

In hac ejusque potestate duos esse gladios, spiritualem videlicet et temporalem, evangelicis dictis instruimur. Nam dicentibus Apostolis: Ecce gladii duo hic [ Blessed Apostle Saint Luke 22:38 ], in ecclesia scilicet, cum apostoli loquerentur, non respondit Dominus, nimis esse, sed satis. Certe qui in potestate Petri temporalem gladium esse negat, male verbum attendit Domini proferentis: Converte gladium tuum in vaginam. [ Blessed Apostle Saint Matthew 26:52 ] Uterque ergo est in potestate ecclesiae, spiritualis scilicet gladius et materialis. Sed is quidem pro ecclesia, ille vero ab ecclesia exercendus, ille sacerdotis, is manu regum et militum, sed ad nutum et patientiam sacerdotis.

Oportet autem gladium esse sub gladio, et temporalem auctoritatem spirituali subjici potestati. Nam cum dicat Apostolus: Non est potestas nisi a Deo; quae autem sunt, a Deo ordinata sunt [ Romans 13:1 ], non autem ordinata essent, nisi gladius esset sub gladio, et tanquam inferior reduceretur per alium in suprema. Nam secundum B. Dionysium lex dirinitatis est, infima per media in suprema reduci .... Sic de ecclesia et ecclesiastica potestate verificatur vaticinium Hieremiae [ Jeremiah 1:10]: Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes et regna et cetera, quae sequuntur.

Ergo, si deviat terrena potestas, judicabitur a potestate spirituali; sed, si deviat spiritualis minor, a suo superiori si vero suprema, a solo Deo, non ab homine poterit judicari, testante Apostolo: Spiritualis homo judicat omnia, ipse autem a nemine judicatur. [1 Corinthians 2:16.] Est autem haec auctoritas, etsi data sit homini, et exerceatur per hominem, non humana, sed potius divina potestas, ore divino Petro data, sibique suisque successoribus in ipso Christo, quem confessus fuit, petra firmata, dicente Domino ipsi Petro: Quodcunque ligaveris, etc. [ Blessed Apostle Saint Matthew 16:19 ] Quicunque igitur huic potestati a Deo sic ordinatae resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit, nisi duo, sicut Manichaeus, fingat esse principia, quod falsum et haereticum judicamus, quia, testante Moyse, non in principiis, sed in principio coelum Deus creavit et terram. [ Genesis 1:1 ]

Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni humanae creaturae declaramus dicimus, definimus et pronunciamus omnino esse de necessitate salutis.

   

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [ Sgs 6:8 ] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [ 1 Corinthanis 11:3 ]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [ Ephesians 4:5 ]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [ Psalm 21:20 ] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Blessed Apostle Saint John 19:23- 24 ]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [ Blessed Apostle Saint John 21:17 ], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [ Blessed Apostle Saint Peter ]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John "there is one sheepfold and one shepherd." We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: "Behold, here are two swords" [ Blessed Apostle Saint Luke 22:38 ] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: "Put up thy sword into thy scabbard" [ Blessed Apostle Saint Mtthew 26:52 ]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the prieSaint

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: "There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God" [ Romans 13:1-2 ], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: "Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms" and the reSaint Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: "The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [ 1 Corinthians 2:15 ]. This authority, however, ( though it has been given to man and is exercised by man ), is not human but rather divine, granted to Blessed Apostle Saint Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him ( Blessed Apostle Saint Peter ) and his successors by the One Whom Blessed Apostle Saint Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Blessed Apostle Saint Peter himself, "Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven"......[ Blessed Apostle Saint Matthew 16:19 ]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [ Romans 13:2 ], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [ Genesis 1:1 ]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.


17 posted on 07/09/2012 3:52:59 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Papal Primacy

The doctrine of papal primacy upholds the divine authority of the Successor of Blessed Apostle Saint Peter to rule over the entire Church with ordinary and immediate jurisdiction. Two Magisterial texts are key to understanding its supreme nature and the obligation of all who are not invincibly ignorant of this truth to submit to Papal authority for the sake of their salvation.

Pope Boniface VIII, in his Bull Unam Sanctum ( provided below ) , spelled out the doctrine of the necessity of the Church for salvation and with it the necessity of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Regarding the primacy of authority of Peter and his successors he stated:

But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man, is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [ Matt. 16:19 ]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [ cf. Rom. 13:2 ] ... Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.

As with all principles of morality, God does not hold the invincibly ignorant of the truth culpable for failing to live by them. Thus, Pope Pius IX could say regarding the salvation of those outside the Church, and thus also those who do not submit to the Roman Pontiff,

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

This same Pope convened the First Vatican Council, which in addition to defining papal infallibility also defined papal primacy. Both doctrines point the faithful to the necessity of union with the Successor of Peter. Infallibility directs our attention to the unifying role of the Pope in matters of faith, and primacy to that role with respect to sacramental and other ecclesiastical disciplines.

...all the faithful of Christ must believe "that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith, and teacher of all Catholics; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church, just as is also contained in the records of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.

... the faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both as separate individuals and all together, are bound by a duty of hierarchical submission and true obedience, not only in things pertaining to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world, so that the Church of Christ, protected not only by the Roman Pontiff, but by the unity of communion as well as of the profession of the same faith is one flock under the one highest shepherd. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation... [ Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Vatican Council I, 1870 ]

The Papal Oath

Note: This sacred oath was first taken, as recorded in Church annals [ Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum, Migne's Patrologia Latina 105, 40-44 and published by Eugene de Rozier, A.D. 1869 ], by Pope Saint Agatho A.D. 27 June 678. It is widely accepted that it was even taken by several predecessors of Pope Saint Agatho, as well as most of his successors. Who composed the oath is not known. What also cannot be fully verified is whether this, or a similar oath, was relied upon in the latter centuries. A Latin translation is yet to be verified, considering it would originally have been in the Mother tongue. For this reason, we welcome any assistance in its verification. What is important is to read below the absolute Catholicity of the words.

In this oath : the Vicar of Christ ( the selected Pope ) vows to never contradict the Deposit of Faith, or change/innovate anything that has been handed down to him ; to do so would gravely violate, before God, his intention and calling.

This Papal Oath is part of our Catholic Tradition. It began around the 6th or 7th Century, and even though it has been avoided by the recently selected Newchurch popes, it is, nonetheless, the faithful's vitae of the Pope, the Successor of Blessed Apostle Saint Peter. Having taken this oath, he would be without authority to veer from his promise to the Most Holy Trinity. Would this not be a given with every successor? Why then did the conciliar 'popes' refuse the basic essence of an oath relied upon from A.D. 678 through A.D. 1958 ? Why do Newchurch apologists refuse this commitment as basic and ageless as the tri-regno responsibility to teach, sanctify and govern as the 'servant of the servants' ? The chief Shepherd of the flock instead became, as Christ warned against - wolves in sheeps' clothing !

>

The Oath

"I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

"To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort;

"To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

"I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

"I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

"If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

"Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone -- be it Ourselves or be it another -- who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture."

Paul VI abandoned the Papal Tiara immediately after his selection. It is a symbolic reference to the infallible authority and spiritual standing of the "servant of the servants of God" ; accorded to one who has been properly selected to sit on The Chair of Peter. It is his singular responsibility to guide His faithful under the roof of the One True Church established to convert all of humanity to His Most Holy Trinity. It has been refused by each of the Newchurch 'popes' replacing Paul VI, as well. With that, Paul VI's actions, and the anathema of Vatican II, admitted by his signature on Lumen Gentium automatically put him, and all his successors outside the Church, thus making all of his appointments, decrees, pronouncements and works completely null and utterly void. Since no one has repented of this in continuing the anathema, nothing has changed. The conciliar church remains in apostasy and outside the true Catholic Church without which there is no salvation ( ).


18 posted on 07/09/2012 3:54:18 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Pope Pius XII with Tiara and Sedalia

"The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable section of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth." ~~ Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mediator Dei #60, November 20, 1947


19 posted on 07/09/2012 3:55:18 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS

Encyclical by Pope Saint Pius X

Anno Dómini 8 September 1907

Stemming The "Synthesis of all Heresies" : Modernism

To Our Venerable Brethren: the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Local Ordinaries in Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See -- Venerable Brethren, health and Apostolic Benediction!

1. One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord's flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking "men speaking perverse things,"[1] "vain talkers and seducers,"[2] "erring and driving into error."[3] It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of ChriSaint Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office.

2. That We should act without delay in this matter is made imperative especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church's open enemies; but, what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are the more mischievous the less they keep in the open. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards 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, put themselves forward 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 audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary mall.

3. Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which Cod alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action. Nor indeed would he be wrong in regarding them as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as We have said, they put into operation their designs for her undoing, 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 from the very fact that their knowledge of her is more intimate. Moreover, they lay the ax not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers. And once having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to diffuse poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth which they leave untouched, 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 devices; for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and as 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 irreproachable morality. Finally, there is the fact which is all hut fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.

Once indeed We had hopes of recalling them to a better mind, and to this end We first of all treated them with kindness as Our children, then with severity; and at last We have had recourse, though with great reluctance, to public reproof. It is known to you, Venerable Brethren, how unavailing have been Our efforts. For a moment they have bowed their head, only to lift it more arrogantly than before. 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 We must interrupt a silence which it would be criminal to prolong, that We may point out to the whole Church, as they really are, men who are badly disguised.

4. It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfaSaint For this reason it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out their interconnection, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil results.

5. To proceed in an orderly manner in this somewhat abstruse subject, it must first of all be noted that the Modernist sustains and includes within himself a manifold personality; he is a philosopher, a believer, a theologian, an historian, a critic, an apologist, a reformer. These roles must be clearly distinguished one from another by all who would accurately understand their system and thoroughly grasp the principles and the outcome of their doctrines.

6. We begin, then, with the philosopher. Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is commonly called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that appear, and in the manner in which they appear: it has neither the right nor the power to overstep 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, everyone will at once perceive what becomes of Natural Theology, of the motives of credibility, of external revelation. The modernists simply sweep them entirely aside; they include them in Intellectualism, which they denounce as a system which is ridiculous and long since defunct. 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";[4] 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'';[5] and finally, "If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs, and that therefore men should be drawn to the faith only by their personal internal experience or by private inspiration, let him be anathema."[6] It may be asked, in what way do the Modernists contrive to 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, they proceed from the fact of ignorance as to whether God has in fact intervened in the history of the human race or not, to explain this history, leaving God out 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 see clearly what, as a consequence of this most absurd teaching, must be held touching the most sacred Person of Christ, and the mysteries of His life and death, and of His Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven.

7. However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernists: the positive part consists in what they call vital immanence. Thus they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation. But when natural theology has been destroyed, and the road to revelation closed by 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 of 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. In this way is formulated the principle of religious immanence. Moreover, the first actuation, so to speak, of every vital phenomenon -- and religion, as noted above, belongs to this category -- is due to a certain need or impulsion; but speaking more particularly of life, it has its origin in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sense. Therefore, as God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and foundation of all religion, must consist in a certain interior sense, originating in 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, but is first latent beneath consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its root lies hidden and undetected.

It may perhaps be asked how it is that this need of the divine which man experiences within himself resolves itself into religion? To this question the Modernist reply would be as follows: Science and history are confined within two boundaries, the one external, namely, the visible world, the other internal, which is consciousness. When one or other of these limits 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 the subconsciousness, the need of the divine in a soul which is prone to religion excites -- according to the principles of Fideism, without any previous advertence of the mind -- a certain special sense, and this sense possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the divine reality itself, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sense to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this is what they hold to be the beginning of religion.

8. But we have not yet reached the end of their philosophizing, or, to speak more accurately, of their folly. Modernists find in this sense not only faith, but in and with faith, as they understand it, they affirm that there is also to be found revelation. For, indeed, what more is needed to constitute a revelation? Is not that religious sense which is perceptible in the conscience, revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is it not God Himself manifesting Himself, indistinctly, it is true, in this same religious sense, to the soul? 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 to say, God is both the Revealer and the Revealed.

From this, Venerable Brethren, springs that most absurd tenet of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. It is thus that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. From this they derive the law laid down as the universal standard, according to which religious consciousness is to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and that to it all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in the capacity of teacher, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred liturgy or discipline.

9. 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 historicocritical corollaries which they deduce from it. The unknowable they speak of does not present itself to faith as something solitary and isolated; hut on the contrary in close conjunction with some phenomenon, which, though it belongs to the realms of science or history, yet to some extent exceeds their limits. 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 reconciled with the ordinary laws of history. Then faith, attracted by the unknowable which is united with the phenomenon, seizes upon the whole phenomenon, and, as it were, permeates it with its own life. From this two things follow. The first is a sort of transfiguration of the phenomenon, by its elevation above its own true conditions, an elevation by which it becomes more adapted to clothe itself with the form of the divine character which faith will bestow upon it. The second consequence is a certain disfiguration -- so it may be called -- of the same phenomenon, arising from the fact that faith attributes to it, when stripped of the circumstances of place and time, characteristics which it does not really possess; and this takes place especially in the case of the phenomena of the past, and the more fully in the measure of their antiquity. From these two principles the Modernists deduce two laws, which, when united with a third which they have already derived from agnosticism, constitute the foundation of historic criticism. An example may be sought in the Person of ChriSaint In the Person of Christ, they say, science and history encounter nothing that is not human. Therefore, in virtue of the first canon deduced from agnosticism, whatever there is in His history suggestive of the divine must be rejected. Then, according to the second canon, the historical Person of Christ was transfigured by faith; therefore everything that raises it above historical conditions must be removed. 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 strict keeping with His character, condition, and education, and with the place and time in which He lived. A method of reasoning which is passing strange, but in it we have the Modernist criticism.

10. It is thus that the religious sense, 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 sense, which was at first only rudimentary and almost formless, under the influence of that mysterious principle from which it originated, gradually matured with the progress of human life, of which, as has been said, it is a certain form. This, then, is the origin of all. even of supernatural religion. For religions are mere developments of this religious sense. Nor is the Catholic religion an exception; it is quite on a level with the rest; for it was engendered, by the process of vital immanence, and by no other way, in the consciousness of Christ, who was a man of the choicest nature, whose like has never been, nor will be. In hearing these things we shudder indeed at so great an audacity of assertion and so great a sacrilege. And yet, Venerable Brethren, these are not merely the foolish babblings of unbelievers. There are Catholics, yea, and priests too, who say these things openly; and they boast that they are going to reform the Church by these ravings! The question is no longer one of the old error which claimed for human nature a sort of right to the supernatural. It has gone far beyond that, and has reached the point when it is affirmed that our most holy religion, in the man Christ as in us, emanated from nature spontaneously and of itself. Nothing assuredly could be more utterly destructive of the whole supernatural order. For this reason 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."[7].

11. So far, Venerable Brethren, there has been no mention of the intellect. 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 sense of which We have frequently spoken, since sense is not knowledge, they say 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 certain light should be cast upon this sense so that God may clearly stand out in relief and be set apart from it. This is the task of the intellect, whose office it is to reflect and to analyze; and by means of it, man first transforms into mental pictures the vital phenomena which arise within him, and then expresses them in words. Hence the common saying of Modernists: that the religious man must think his faith. The mind then, encountering this .sense, throws itself upon it, and works in it after the manner of a painter who restores to greater clearness the lines of a picture that have been dimmed with age. The simile is that of one of the leaders of Modernism. The operation of the mind in this work is a double one: first, by a natural and spontaneous act it expresses its concept in a simple, popular statement; then, on reflection and deeper consideration, or, as they say, by elaborating its thought, it expresses the idea in secondary propositions, which are derived from the first, but are more precise and distinct. These secondary propositions, if they finally receive the approval of the supreme magisterium of the Church, constitute dogma.

12. We have thus reached one of the principal points in the Modernist's 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 aspect, are necessary to faith; for revelation, to be truly such, requires the clear knowledge of God in the consciousness. But dogma itself, they apparently hold, strictly consists 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 sense. This will be readily perceived by anyone who holds that these formulas have no other purpose than to furnish the believer with a means of giving to himself an account of his faith. These formulas therefore stand midway between the believer and his faith; in their relation to the faith they are the inadequate expression of its object, and are usually called symbols; in their relation to the believer they are mere instruments.

Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

13. Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense -- with some modification when needful -- should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the .secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart. Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. "Blind'- they are, and "leaders of the blind" puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which "they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself."[8].

14. Thus far, Venerable Brethren, We have considered the Modernist as a philosopher. Now if We proceed to consider him as a believer, and seek to know how the believer, according to Modernism, is marked off from the philosopher, it must be observed that, although the philosopher recognizes the reality of the divine as the object of faith, still this reality is not to be found by him but in the heart of the believer, as an object of feeling and affirmation, and therefore confined within the sphere of phenomena; but the question as to whether in itself it exists outside that feeling and affirmation is one which the philosopher passes over and neglects. For the Modernist believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the reality of the divine does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the views of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. The following is their manner of stating the question: In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God's existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed 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, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer.

How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe 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 sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Catholic because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Catholicism. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey 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 sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate.

15. There is yet another element in this part of their teaching which is absolutely contrary to Catholic truth. For what is laid down as to experience is also applied with destructive effect to tradition, which has always been maintained by the Catholic Church. Tradition, as understood by the Modernists, is a communication with others of an original experience, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula. To this formula, in addition to its representative value they attribute a species of suggestive efficacy which acts firstly in the believer by stimulating the religious sense, should it happen to have grown sluggish, and by renewing the experience once acquired, and secondly, in those who do not yet believe by awakening in them for the first time the religious sense and producing the experience. In this way is religious experience spread abroad among the nations; and not merely among contemporaries by preaching, but among future generations both by books and by oral transmission from one to another. Sometimes this communication of religious experience takes root and thrives, at other times it withers at once and dies. For the Modernists, to live is a proof of truth, since for them life and truth are one and the same thing. Thus we are once more led to infer that all existing religions are equally true, for otherwise they would not survive.

16. We have proceeded sufficiently far, Venerable Brethren, to have before us enough, and more than enough, to enable us to see what are the relations which Modernists establish between faith and science -- including, as they are wont to do under that name, history. And in the first place it is to be held that the object-matter of the one is quite extraneous to and separate from the object-matter of the other. For faith occupies itself solely with something which science declares to be for it unknowable. Hence each has a separate scope assigned to it: science is entirely concerned with phenomena, into which faith does not at all enter; faith, on the contrary, concerns itself with the divine, which is entirely unknown to science. Thus it is contended 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 can be in contradiction. And if it be objected that in the visible world there are some things which appertain to faith, such as the human life of Christ, the Modernists reply by denying this. For though such things come within the category of phenomena, still in as far as they are lived by faith and in the way already described have been by faith transfigured and disfigured, they have been removed from the world of sense and transferred into material for the divine. Hence should it be further asked whether Christ has wrought real miracles, and made real prophecies, whether He rose truly from the dead and ascended into Heaven, the answer of agnostic science will be in the negative and the answer of faith in the affirmative yet there will not be, on that account, any conflict between them. For it will be denied by the philosopher as a philosopher speaking to philosophers and considering Christ only in historical reality; and it will be affirmed by the believer as a believer speaking to believers and considering the life of Christ as lived again by the faith and in the faith.

17. It would be a great mistake, nevertheless, to suppose that, according to these theories, one is allowed to believe that faith and science are entirely independent of each other. On the side of science that is indeed quite true and correct, but it is quite otherwise 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 one takes away the divine reality and the experience of it which the believer possesses, everything else, and especially the religious formulas, belongs to the sphere of phenomena and therefore falls under the control of science. Let the believer go out of the world if he will, but so long as he remains in it, whether he like it or not, he cannot escape from the laws, the observation, the judgments of science and of history. Further, although it is contended that God is the object of faith alone, the statement refers only to the divine reality, not to the idea of God. The latter also is subject to science which, while it philosophizes in what is called the logical order, soars also to the absolute and the ideal. It is therefore the right of philosophy and of science to form its knowledge concerning the idea of God, to direct it in its evolution and to purify it of any extraneous elements which may have entered into it. Hence we have the Modernist axiom that the religious evolution ought to be brought into accord with the moral and intellectual, or as one whom they regard as their leader has expressed it, ought to be subject to it. Finally, man does not suffer a dualism to exist in himself, and the believer therefore feels within him an impelling need so to harmonize faith with science that it may never oppose the general conception which science sets forth concerning the universe.

Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this, Venerable Brethren, is in formal opposition to the teachings of Our predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: "In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, not to prescribe what is to be believed, but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinize the depths of the mysteries of God, but to venerate them devoutly and humbly."[9]

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text...to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid."[10]

18. This will appear more clearly 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 doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationaliSaint 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 are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther[11] and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers.

19. At this point, Venerable Brethren, the way is opened for us to consider the Modernists in the theological arena -- a difficult task, yet one that may be disposed of briefly. It is a question of effecting the conciliation of faith with science, but always by making the one subject to the other. In this matter the Modernist theologian takes exactly the same principles which we have seen employed by the Modernist philosopher -- the principles of immanence and symbolism -- and applies them to the believer. 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 it as certain that the representations of the object of faith are merely symbolical; the believer has likewise affirmed that the object of faith is God in himself; and the theologian proceeds to affirm that: The representations of the divine reality are symbolical. And thus we have theological symbolism. These errors are truly of the gravest kind and the pernicious character of both will be seen clearly from an examination of their consequences. For, to begin with symbolism, since symbols are but symbols in regard to their objects and only instruments in regard to the believer, it is necessary first of all, according to the teachings of the Modernists, that the believer does not lay too much stress on the formula, as formula, but avail himself of it only for the purpose of uniting himself to the absolute truth which the formula at once reveals and conceals, that is to say, endeavors to express but without ever succeeding in doing so. They would also have the believer make use of the formulas only in as far as they are helpful 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 shall provide otherwise. Concerning immanence it is not easy to determine what Modernists precisely mean by it, for their own opinions on the subject vary. Some understand it in the sense that God working in man is more intimately present in him than man is even in himself; and this conception, if properly understood, is irreproachable. Others hold that the divine action is one with the action of nature, as the action of the first cause is one with the action of the secondary cause; and this would destroy the supernatural order. Others, finally, explain it in a way which savors of pantheism, and this, in truth, is the sense which best fits in with the rest of their doctrines.

20. With this principle of immanence is connected another which may be called the principle of divine permanence. It differs from the first in much the same way as the private experience differs from the experience transmitted by tradition. An example illustrating what is meant will be found in the Church and the sacraments. The Church and the sacraments according to the Modernists, are not to be regarded as having been instituted by Christ Himself. This is barred by agnosticism, which recognizes in Christ nothing more than a man whose religious consciousness has been, like that of all men, formed by degrees; it is also barred by the law of immanence, which rejects what they call external application; it is further barred by the law of evolution, which requires, for the development of the germs, time and a certain series of circumstances; it is finally, barred by history, which shows that such in fact has been the course of things. Still it is to he held that both Church and sacraments have been founded mediately by ChriSaint But how? In this way: All Christian consciences were, they affirm, in a manner virtually included in the conscience of Christ as the plant is included in the seed. But as the branches live the life of the seed, so, too, all Catholics are to be said to live the life of Christ. But the life of Christ, according to faith, is divine, and so, too, is the life of Catholics. And if 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 make out that the Holy Scriptures and the dogmas are divine. And in this, the Modernist theology may be said to reach its completion. A slender provision, in truth, but more than enough for the theologian who professes that the conclusions of science, whatever they may be, must always be accepted! No one will have any difficulty in making the application of these theories to the other points with which We propose to deal.

21. Thus far We have touched upon the origin and nature of faith. But as faith has many branches, and chief among them the Church, dogma, worship, devotions, the Books which we call "sacred," it concerns us to know what the Modernists teach concerning them. To begin with dogma, We have already indicated its origin and nature. Dogma is born of a sort of impulse or necessity by virtue of which the believer elaborates his thought so as to render it clearer to his own conscience and that of others. This elaboration consists entirely in the process of investigating and refining the primitive mental formula, not indeed in itself and according to any logical explanation, but according to circumstances, or vitally as the Modernists somewhat less intelligibly describe it. Hence it happens that around this primitive formula secondary formulas, as We have already indicated, gradually continue to be formed, and these subsequently grouped into one body, or one doctrinal construction and further sanctioned by the public magisterium as responding to the common consciousness, are called dogma. Dogma is to be carefully distinguished from the speculations of theologians which, although not alive with the life of dogma, are not without their utility as serving both to harmonize religion with science and to remove opposition between them, and to illumine and defend religion from without, and it may be even to prepare the matter for future dogma. Concerning worship there would not be much to be said, were it not that under this head are comprised the sacraments, concerning which the Modernist errors are of the most serious character. For them the sacraments are the resultant of a double impulse or need -- for, as we have seen, everything in their system is explained by inner impulses or necessities. The first need is that of giving some sensible manifestation to religion; the second is that of expressing it, which could not be done without some sensible form and consecrating acts, and these are called sacraments. But for the Modernists, sacraments are bare 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 the popular ear, inasmuch as they have the power of putting certain leading ideas into circulation, and of making a marked impression upon the mind. What the phrases are to the ideas, that the sacraments are to the religious sense, that and nothing more. The Modernists would express their mind more clearly were they to affirm that the sacraments are instituted solely to foster the faith but this is condemned by the Council of Trent: If anyone says that these sacraments are instituted solely to foster the faith, let him be anathema.[12]

22. We have already touched upon the nature and origin of the Sacred Books. According to the principles of the Modernists they may be rightly described as a summary of experiences, not indeed of the kind that may now and again come to anybody, but those extraordinary and striking experiences which are the possession of every religion. And this is precisely what they teach about our books of the Old and New Testament. But to suit their own theories they note with remarkable ingenuity that, although experience is something belonging to the present, still it may draw its material in like manner from the past and the future 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 apocalyptic books are included among the Sacred Writings. God does indeed speak in these books through the medium of the believer, but according to Modernist theology, only by immanence and vital permanence. We may ask, what then becomes of inspiration? Inspiration, they reply, is in nowise distinguished from that impulse which stimulates the believer to reveal the faith that is in him by words of writing, except perhaps by its vehemence. It is something like that which happens in poetical inspiration, of which it has been said: There is a God in us, and when he stirreth he sets us afire. It is in this sense that God is said to be the origin of the inspiration of the Sacred Books. The Modernists moreover affirm concerning this inspiration, that there is nothing in the Sacred Books which is devoid of it. In this respect some might be disposed to consider them as more orthodox than certain writers in recent times who somewhat restrict inspiration, as, for instance, in what have been put forward as so-called tacit citations. But in all this we have mere verbal conjuring. For if we take the Bible, according to the standards of agnosticism, namely, as a human work, made by men for men, albeit the theologian is allowed to proclaim that it is divine by immanence, what room is there left in it for inspiration? The Modernists assert a general inspiration of the Sacred Books, but they admit no inspiration in the Catholic sense.

23. A wider field for comment is opened when we come to what the Modernist school has imagined to be the nature of the Church. They begin with the supposition that the Church has its birth in a double need; first, the need of the individual believer to communicate his faith to others, especially if he has had some original and special experience, and secondly, when the faith has become common to many, the need of the collectivity to form itself into a society and to guard, promote, and propagate the common good. What, then, is the Church? It is the product of the collective conscience, that is to say, of the association of individual consciences which, by virtue of the principle of vital permanence, depend all on one first believer, who for Catholics is ChriSaint Now every society needs a directing authority to guide its members towards the common end, to foster prudently the elements of cohesion, which in a religious society are doctrine and worship. Hence the triple authority in the Catholic Church, disciplinary, dogmatic, liturgical. 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 conception has now grown obsolete. For in the same way as the Church is a vital emanation of the collectivity of consciences, so too authority emanates vitally from the Church itself. Authority, therefore, like the Church, has its origin in the religious conscience, and, that being so, is subject to it. Should it disown this dependence it becomes a tyranny. For we are living in an age when the sense of liberty has reached its highest development. In the civil order the public conscience has introduced popular government. Now there is in man only one conscience, just as there is only one life. It is for the ecclesiastical authority, therefore, to adopt a democratic form, 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 now obtains, can recede. Were it forcibly pent up and held in bonds, the more terrible would be its outburst, sweeping away at once both Church and religion. Such is the situation in the minds of 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 the believers.

24. But it is not only within her own household that the Church must come to terms. Besides her relations with those within, she has others with those who are outside. The Church does not occupy the world all by herself; there are other societies in the world., with which she must necessarily have dealings and contact. The rights and duties of the Church towards civil societies must, therefore, be determined, and determined, of course, by her own nature, that, to wit, which the Modernists have already described to us. The rules to be applied in this matter are clearly those which have been laid down for science and faith, though in the latter case the question turned upon the object, while in the present case we have one of ends. In the same way, then, as faith and science are alien to each other by reason of the diversity of their objects, Church and State are strangers by reason of the diversity of their ends, that of the Church being spiritual while that of the State is temporal. Formerly it was possible to subordinate the temporal to the spiritual and to speak of some questions as mixed, conceding to the Church the position of queen and mistress in all such, because the Church was then regarded as having been instituted immediately by God as the author of the supernatural order. But this doctrine is today repudiated alike by 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 rebukes. For the Church to trace out and prescribe for the citizen any line of action, on any pretext whatsoever, is to be guilty of an abuse of authority, against which one is bound to protest with all one's might. Venerable Brethren, the principles from which these doctrines spring have been solemnly condemned by Our predecessor, Pius VI, in his Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei.[13]

25. But it is not enough for the Modernist school that the State should be separated from the Church. For as faith is to be subordinated to science as far as phenomenal elements are concerned, so too in temporal matters the Church must be subject to the State. This, indeed, Modernists may not yet say openly, but they are forced by the logic of their position to admit it. For granted the principle that in temporal matters the State possesses the sole power, it will follow that when the believer, not satisfied with merely internal acts of religion, proceeds to external acts -- such for instance as the reception or administration of the sacraments -- these will fall under the control of the State. What will then become of ecclesiastical authority, which can only be exercised by external acts? Obviously it will be completely under the dominion of the State. It is this inevitable consequence which urges many among liberal Protestants to reject all external worship -- nay, all external religious fellowship, and leads them to advocate what they call individual religion. If the Modernists have not yet openly proceeded so far, they ask the Church in the meanwhile to follow of her own accord in the direction in which they urge her and to adapt herself to the forms of the State. Such are their ideas about disciplinary authority. But much more evil and pernicious are their opinions on doctrinal and dogmatic authority. The following is their conception of the magisterium of the Church: No religious society, they say, can be a real unit unless the religious conscience of its members be one, and 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 these two elements, the common mind which draws up the formula and the authority which imposes it, arises, according to the Modernists, the notion of the ecclesiastical magisterium. And, as this magisterium springs, in its last analysis, from the individual consciences and possesses its mandate of public utility for their benefit, it necessarily follows that the ecclesiastical magisterium must be dependent upon them, and should therefore be made to bow to the popular ideals. To prevent individual consciences from expressing freely and openly the impulses they feel, to hinder criticism from urging forward dogma in the path of its necessary evolution, is not a legitimate use but an abuse of a power given for the public weal. So too a due method and measure must be observed in the exercise of authority. To condemn and proscribe a work without the knowledge of the author, without hearing his explanations, without discussion, is something approaching to tyranny. And here again it is a question of finding a way of reconciling the full rights of authority on the one hand and those of liberty on the other. In the meantime the proper course for the Catholic will be to proclaim publicly his profound respect for authority, while never ceasing to follow his own judgment. Their general direction for the Church is as follows: that the ecclesiastical authority, since its end is entirely spiritual, should strip itself of that external pomp which adorns it in the eyes of the public. In this, they forget that while religion is for the soul, it is not exclusively for the soul, and that the honor paid to authority is reflected back on Christ who instituted it.

26. To conclude this whole question of faith and its various branches, we have still to consider, Venerable Brethren, what the Modernists have to say about the development of the one and the other. First of all they lay down the general principle that in a living religion everything is subject to change, and must in fact be changed. In this way they pass to what is practically their principal doctrine, namely, evolution. To the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death -- dogma, Church, worship, the Books we revere as sacred, even faith itself. The enunciation of this principle will not be a matter of surprise to anyone 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 operates. And first, with regard to faith. The primitive form of faith, they tell us, was rudimentary and common to all men alike, for it had its origin in human nature and human life. Vital evolution brought with it progress, not by the accretion of new and purely adventitious forms from without, but by an increasing perfusion of the religious sense into the conscience. The progress was of two kinds: negative, by the elimination of all extraneous elements, such, for example, as those derived from the family or nationality; and positive, by that intellectual and moral refining of man, by means of which the idea of the divine became fuller and clearer, while the religious sense became more acute. For the progress of faith the same causes are to be assigned as those which are adduced above to explain its origin. But to them must be added those extraordinary men whom we call prophets -- of whom Christ was the greatest -- both because in their lives and their words there was something mysterious which faith attributed to the divinity, and because it fell to their lot to have new and original experiences fully in harmony with the religious needs of their time. The progress of dogma is due chiefly to the fact that obstacles to the faith have to be surmounted, enemies have to be vanquished, and objections have to be refuted. Add to this a perpetual striving to penetrate ever more profoundly into those things which are contained in the mysteries of faith. Thus, putting aside other examples, it is found to have happened in the case of Christ: in Him that divine something which faith recognized in Him was slowly and gradually expanded in such a way that He was at last held to be God. The chief stimulus of the evolution of worship consists in the need of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by usage. Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society. Such is their view with regard to each. And here, before proceeding further, We wish to draw attention to this whole theory of necessities or needs, for beyond all that we have seen, it is, as it were, the base and foundation of that famous method which they describe as historical.

27. Although evolution is urged on by needs or necessities, yet, if controlled by these alone, it would easily overstep the boundaries of tradition, and thus, separated from its primitive vital principle, would make for ruin instead of progress. Hence, by those who study more closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force exists in the Church and is found in tradition; tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact. By right, for it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition: and in fact, since authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs, lies in the individual consciences and works in them -- especially in such of them as are in more close and intimate contact with life. Already we observe, Venerable Brethren, the introduction of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity the factor of progress in the Church. Now it is by a species of covenant and compromise between these two forces of conservation and progress, that is to say between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The individual consciences, or some of them, act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositories of authority to make terms and to keep to them.

With all this in mind, one understands how it is that the Modernists express astonishment when they are reprimanded or punished. What is imputed to them as a fault they regard as a sacred duty. They understand the needs of consciences better than anyone else, since they come into closer touch with them than does the ecclesiastical authority. Nay, they embody them, so to speak, in themselves. Hence, for them to speak and to write publicly is a bounden duty. Let authority rebuke them if 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 victims; 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 they readily admit that it is only doing its duty as authority. Their sole grief is that it remains deaf to their warnings, for in this way it impedes the progress of souls, but the hour will most surely come when further delay will be impossible, for if the laws of evolution may be checked for a while they cannot be finally evaded. And thus they go their way, reprimands and condemnations not withstanding, masking an incredible audacity under a mock semblance of humility. While they make a pretense of bowing their heads, their minds and hands are more boldly intent than ever on carrying out their purposes. And this policy they follow willingly and wittingly, both because it is part of their system that authority is to be stimulated but not dethroned, and because it is necessary for them to remain within the ranks of the Church in order that they may gradually transform the collective conscience. And in saying this, they fail to perceive that they are avowing that the collective conscience is not with them, and that they have no right to claim to be its interpreters.

28. It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners 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."[14] On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason";[15] and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained 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."[16] Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: "Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation."[17]

29. We have studied the Modernist as philosopher, believer, and theologian. It now remains for us to consider him as historian, critic, apologist, and reformer.

30. Some Modernists, devoted to historical studies, seem to be deeply anxious not to be taken for philosophers. About philosophy they profess to know nothing whatever, and in this they display remarkable astuteness, for they are particularly desirous not to be suspected of any prepossession in favor of philosophical theories which would lay them open to the charge of not being, as they call it, objective. 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 outcome of their philosophical principles. This will be patent to anyone who reflects. Their three first laws are contained in those three principles of their philosophy already dealt with: the principle of agnosticism, the theorem of the transfiguration of things by faith, and that other which may be called the principle of disfiguration. Let us see what consequences flow from each of these. Agnosticism tells us that history, like science, deals entirely with phenomena, and the consequence is that God, and every intervention of God in human affairs, is to be relegated to the domain of faith as belonging to it alone. Wherefore in things where there is combined a double element, the divine and the human, as, for example, in Christ, or the Church, or the sacraments, or the many other objects of the same kind, a division and separation must be made and the human element must he left to history while the divine will he assigned to faith. Hence we have that distinction, so current among the Modernists, between the Christ of history and the Christ of faith; the Church of history and the Church of faith; the sacraments of history and the sacraments of faith, and so in similar matters. Next we find that the human element itself, which the historian has to work on, as it appears in the documents, is to be considered as having been transfigured by faith, that is to say, raised above its historical conditions. It becomes necessary, therefore, to eliminate also the accretions which faith has added, to relegate them to faith itself and to the history of faith. Thus, when treating of Christ, the historian must set aside all that surpasses man in his natural condition, according to what psychology tells us of him, or according to what we gather from the place and period of his existence. Finally, they require, by virtue of the third principle, that even those things which are not outside the sphere of history should pass through the sieve, excluding all and relegating to faith everything which, in their judgment, is not in harmony with what they call the logic of facts or not in character with the persons of whom they are predicated. Thus, they will not allow that Christ ever uttered those things which do not seem to be within the capacity of the multitudes that listened to Him. Hence they delete from His real history and transfer to faith all the allegories found in His discourses. We may peradventure inquire on what principle they make these divisions? Their reply is that they argue from the character of the man, from his condition of life, from his education, from the complexus of the circumstances under which the facts took place; in short, if We understand them aright, on a principle which in the last analysis is merely .subjective. Their method is to put themselves into the position and person of Christ, and then to attribute to Him what they would have done under like circumstances. In this way, absolutely a priori and acting on philosophical principles which they hold but which they profess 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, consider that He ought to have said or done.

31. As history takes its conclusions from philosophy, so too criticism takes its conclusions from history. The critic on the data furnished him by the historian, makes two parts of all his documents. Those that remain after the triple elimination above described go to form the real history; the rest is attributed to the history of the faith or, as it is styled, to internal history. For the Modernists distinguish very carefully between these two kinds of history, and it is to be noted that they oppose the history of the faith to real history precisely as real. Thus, as we have already said, we have a twofold 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 never lived outside the pious meditations of the believer -- the Christ, for instance, whom we find in the Gospel of Saint John, which, according to them, is mere meditation from beginning to end.

32. But the dominion of philosophy over history does not end here. Given that division, of which We have spoken, of the documents into two parts, the philosopher steps in again with his dogma 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 or want, it follows that no fact can be regarded as antecedent to the need which produced it -- historically the fact must be posterior to the need. What, then, does the historian do in view of this principle? He goes over his documents again, whether they be contained in the Sacred Books or elsewhere, draws up from them his list of the particular needs of the Church, whether relating to dogma, or liturgy, or other matters which are found in the Church thus related, and then he hands his list over to the critic. The critic takes in hand the documents dealing with the history of faith and distributes them, period by period, so that they correspond exactly with the list of needs, always guided by the principle that the narration must follow the facts, as the facts follow the needs. It may at times happen that some parts of the Sacred Scriptures, such as the Epistles, themselves constitute the fact created by the need. Even so, the rule holds that the age of any document can only be determined by the age in which each need has manifested itself in the Church. Further, a distinction must be made between the beginning of a fact and its development, for what is born in one day requires time for growth. Hence the critic must once more go over his documents, ranged as they are through the different ages, and divide them again into two parts, separating those that regard the origin of the facts from those that deal with their development, and these he must again arrange according to their periods.

33. Then the philosopher must come in again to enjoin upon the historian the obligation of following in all his studies the precepts and laws of evolution. It is next for the historian to scrutinize his documents once more, to examine carefully the circumstances and conditions affecting the Church during the different periods, the conserving force she has put forth, the needs both internal and external that have stimulated her to progress, the obstacles she has had to encounter, in a word, everything that helps to determine the manner in which the laws of evolution have been fulfilled in her. This done, he finishes his work by drawing up a history of the development in its broad lines. The critic follows and fits in the rest of the documents. He sets himself to write. The history is finished. Now We ask here: Who is the author of this history? The historian? The critic? Assuredly neither of these but the philosopher. From beginning to end everything in it is a priori, and an apriorism that reeks of heresy. These men are certainly to be pitied, of whom the Apostle might well say: "They became vain in their thoughts...professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.''[18] At the same time, they excite resentment when they accuse the Church of arranging and confusing the texts after her own fashion, and for the needs of her cause. In this they are accusing the Church of something for which their own conscience plainly reproaches them.

34. The result of this dismembering of the records, 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 generally that these books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed from a primitive brief narration, by additions, by interpolations of theological or allegorical interpretations, or parts introduced only for the purpose of joining different passages together. This means, to put it briefly and clearly, that in the Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding 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 it. Indeed, this history they actually do write, and with such an easy assurance that one might believe them to have seen with their own eyes 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, adducing other arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their assured verdict as to whether a thing is or is not out of place. Let him who can judge how far they are qualified in this way to make such distinctions. To hear them descant of 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 turned over the pages of Scripture. The truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, far superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding in them anything blameworthy have thanked God more and more heartily the more deeply they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately. these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for they did not have for their rule and guide a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves.

We believe, then, that We have set forth with sufficient clearness the historical method of the Modernists. The philosopher leads the way, the historian follows, and then in due order come the internal and textual critics. And since it is characteristic of the primary cause to communicate its virtue to causes which are secondary, it is quite clear that the criticism with which We are concerned is not any kind of criticism, but that which is rightly called agnostic, immanentist, and evolutionist criticism. Hence anyone who adopts it and employs it makes profession thereby of the errors contained in it, and places himself in opposition to Catholic teaching. This being so, it is much a matter for surprise that it should have found acceptance to such an extent among certain Catholics. Two causes may be assigned for this: first, the close alliance which the historians and critics of this school have formed among themselves independent of all differences of nationality or religion; second, their boundless effrontery by which, if one then makes any utterance, the others applaud him in chorus, proclaiming that science has made another step forward, while if an outsider should desire to inspect the new discovery for himself, they form a coalition against him. He who denies it is decried as one who is ignorant, while he who embraces and defends it has all their praise. In this way they entrap not a few, who, did they but realize what they are doing, would shrink back with horror. The domineering overbearance of those who teach the errors, and the thoughtless compliance of the more shallow minds who assent to them, create a corrupted atmosphere which penetrates everywhere, and carries infection with it. But let Us pass to the apologiSaint.

35. The Modernist apologist depends in two ways on the philosopher. First, indirectly, inasmuch as his subject-matter is history -- history dictated, as we have seen, by the philosopher; and, secondly, directly, inasmuch as he takes both his doctrines and his conclusions from the philosopher. Hence that common axiom of the Modernist school that in the new apologetics controversies in religion must be determined by psychological and historical research. The Modernist apologists, then, enter the arena, proclaiming to the rationalists that, though they are defending religion, they have no intention of employing the data of the sacred books or the histories in current use in the Church, and written upon the old lines, but real history composed on modern principles and according to the modern method. In all this they assert that they are not using an argumentum ad hominem, because they are really of the opinion that the truth is to be found only in this kind of history. They feel that it is not necessary for them to make profession of 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 would only provoke disgust in a real Catholic, but use them as a counter-compensation to the reprimands of the Church. Let us see how the Modernist conducts his apologetics. The aim he sets before himself is to make one who is still without faith attain that experience of the Catholic religion which, according to the system, is the sole basis of faith. There are two ways open to him, the objective and the subjective. The first of them starts 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 element of the unknown. To this end it is necessary to prove that the Catholic religion, as it exists today, is that which was founded by Jesus Christ; that is to say, that it is nothing else than 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 he able to do by the following formula: Christ announced the coming of the kingdom of God, which was to be realized within a brief lapse of time and of which He was to become the Messias, the divinely-given founder and ruler. Then it must be shown how this germ, always immanent and permanent in the Catholic religion, has gone on slowly developing in the course of history, adapting itself successively to the different circumstances through which it has passed, borrowing from them by vital assimilation all the doctrinal, cultural, ecclesiastical forms that served its purpose; whilst, on the other hand, it surmounted all obstacles, vanquished all enemies, and survived all assaults and all combats. Anyone who well and duly considers this mass of obstacles, adversaries, attacks, combats, and the vitality and fecundity which the Church has shown throughout them all, must admit that if the laws of evolution are visible in her life they fail to explain the whole of her history -- the unknown rises forth from it and presents itself before Us. Thus do they argue, not perceiving that their determination of the primitive germ is only an a priori assumption of agnostic and evolutionist philosophy, and that the germ itself has been gratuitously defined so that it may fit in with their contention.

36. But while they endeavor by this line of reasoning to prove and plead for the Catholic religion, these new apologists are more than willing to grant and to recognize that there are in it many things which are repulsive. 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 -- that it is even right and proper. In the Sacred Books there are many passages referring to science or history where, according to them, manifest errors are to he found. But, they say, the subject of these books is not science or history, but only religion and morals. In them history and science serve only as a species of covering 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 expressed in these books, and it is clear that the expression of science and history in a more perfect form would have proved not so much a help as a hindrance. Moreover, they add, the Sacred Books, being essentially religious, are necessarily quick with life. Now life has its own truths and its own logic -- quite different from rational truth and rational logic, belonging as they do to a different order, viz., truth of adaptation and of proportion both with what they call the medium in which it lives and with the end for which it lives. Finally, the Modernists, losing all sense of control, go so far as to proclaim as true and legitimate whatever is explained by life.

We, Venerable Brethren, for whom there is but one and only one truth, and who hold that the Sacred Books, "written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, have God for their author''[19] declare that this is equivalent to attributing to God Himself the lie of utility or officious lie, and We say with Saint Augustine: "In an authority so high, admit but one officious lie, and there will not remain a single passage of those apparently difficult to practice or to believe, which on the same most pernicious rule may not be explained as a lie uttered by the author willfully and to serve a purpose."[20] And thus it will come about, the holy Doctor continues, that "everybody will believe and refuse to believe what he likes or dislikes in them," namely, the Scriptures. But the Modernists pursue their way eagerly. They grant also that certain arguments adduced in the Sacred Books in proof of a given doctrine, like those, for example, which are based on the prophecies, have no rational foundation to rest on. But they defend even these as artifices of preaching, which are justified by life. More than that. 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 He Himself was subject to the laws of life! After this what is to become of the dogmas of the Church? The dogmas bristle with flagrant contradictions, but what does it matter since, apart from the fact that vital logic accepts them, they are not repugnant 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 contradictory statements! But when they justify even contradictions, what is it that they will refuse to justify?

37. But it is not solely by objective arguments that the non-believer may be disposed to faith. There are also those that are subjective, and for this purpose the modernist apologists return to the doctrine of immanence. They endeavor, in fact, to persuade their non-believer that down in the very depths of his nature and his life lie hidden the need and the desire for some 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 again We have grave reason to complain that there are Catholics who, while rejecting immanence as a doctrine, employ it as a method of apologetics, and who do this so imprudently that they seem to admit, not merely a capacity and a suitability for the supernatural, such as has at all times been emphasized, within due limits, by Catholic apologists, but that there is in human nature a true and rigorous need for the supernatural order. Truth to tell, it is only the moderate Modernists who make this appeal to an exigency for the Catholic religion. As for the others, who might he called integralists, they would show to the non-believer, as hidden in his being, the very germ which Christ Himself had in His consciousness, and which He transmitted to mankind. Such, Venerable Brethren, is a summary description of the apologetic method of the Modernists, in perfect harmony with their doctrines -- methods and doctrines replete with errors, made not for edification but for destruction, not for the making of Catholics but for the seduction of those who are Catholics into heresy; and tending to the utter subversion of all religion.

38. It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the 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 written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to he reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?

39. It may, perhaps, seem to some, Venerable Brethren, that We have dealt at too great length on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it was necessary that We should do so, both in order to meet 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, as it were, in a closely connected whole, so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all. For this reason, too, We have had to give to this exposition a somewhat didactic form, and not to shrink from employing certain unwonted terms which the Modernists have brought into use. And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to be the synthesis of all heresies. Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have gone farther than this, for, as We have already intimated, their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion. Hence the rationalists are not wanting in their applause, and the most frank and sincere among them congratulate themselves on having found in the Modernists the most valuable of all allies.

Let us turn for a moment, Venerable Brethren, to that most disastrous doctrine of agnosticism. By it every avenue to God on the side of the intellect is barred to man, while a better way is supposed to be opened from the side of a certain sense of the soul and action. But who does not see how mistaken is such a contention? For the sense of the soul is the response to the action of the thing which the intellect or the outward senses set before it. Take away the intelligence, and man, already inclined to follow the senses, becomes their slave. Doubly mistaken, from another point of view, for all these fantasies of the religious sense 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 truth in itself -- for that other purely subjective truth, the fruit of the internal sense and action, if it serves its purpose for the play of words, is of no benefit to the man who wants above all things to know whether outside himself there is a God into whose hands he is one day to fall. True, the Modernists call in experience to eke out their system, but what does this experience add to that sense of the soul? Absolutely nothing beyond a certain intensity and a proportionate deepening of the conviction of the reality of the object. But these two will never make the sense of the soul into anything but sense, nor will they alter its nature, which is liable to deception when the intelligence is not there to guide it; on the contrary, they but confirm and strengthen this nature, for the more intense the sense is the more it is really sense. And as we are here dealing with religious sense and the experience involved in it, it is known to you, Venerable Brethren, how necessary in such a matter is prudence, and the learning by which prudence is guided. 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 works of ascetical theology -- works for which the Modernists have but little esteem, but which testify to a science and a solidity far greater than theirs, and to a refinement and subtlety of observation far beyond any which the Modernists take credit to themselves for possessing. It seems to Us nothing short of madness, or at the least consummate temerity to accept for true, and without investigation, these incomplete experiences which are the vaunt of the ModerniSaint Let Us for a moment put the question: If experiences have so much force and value in their estimation, why do they not attach equal weight to the experience that so many thousands of Catholics have that the Modernists are on the wrong path? Is it that the Catholic experiences are the only ones which are false and deceptive? The vast majority of mankind holds and always will hold firmly that sense and experience alone, when not enlightened and guided by reason, cannot reach to the knowledge of God. What, then, remains but atheism and the absence of all religion? Certainly it is not the doctrine of .symbolism that will save us from this. For if all the intellectual elements, as they call them, of religion are nothing more than mere symbols of God, will not the very name of God or of divine personality be also a symbol, and if this be admitted, the personality of God will become a matter of doubt and the gate will be opened to pantheism? And to pantheism pure and simple that other doctrine of the divine immanence leads directly. For this is the question which We ask: Does or does not this immanence leave God distinct from man? If it does, in what does it differ from the Catholic doctrine, and why does it reject the doctrine of external revelation? If it does not, it is pantheism. Now the doctrine of immanence in the Modernist acceptation holds and professes that every phenomenon of conscience proceeds from man as man. The rigorous conclusion from this is the identity of man with God, which means pantheism. The distinction which Modernists make between science and faith leads to the same conclusion. The object of science, they say, is the reality of the knowable; the object of faith, on the contrary, is the reality of the unknowable. Now, what makes the unknowable unknowable is the fact that there is no proportion between its object and the intellect -- a defect of proportion which nothing whatever, even in the doctrine of the Modernist, can suppress. Hence the unknowable remains and will eternally remain unknowable to the believer as well as to the philosopher. Therefore if any religion at all is possible, it can only be the religion of an unknowable reality. And why this might not be that soul of the universe, of which certain rationalists speak, is something which certainly does not seem to Us apparent. These reasons suffice to show superabundantly by how many roads Modernism leads to atheism and to the annihilation of all religion. The error of Protestantism made the first step on this path; that of Modernism makes the second; atheism makes the next. 40. To penetrate still deeper into the meaning of Modernism and to find a suitable remedy for so deep a 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 an error of the mind cannot be open to doubt. We recognize that the remote causes may be reduced to two: curiosity and pride. Curiosity by itself, if not prudently regulated, suffices to account for all errors. Such is the opinion of Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, who wrote: "A lamentable spectacle is that presented 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 Catholic Church wherein truth is found without the slightest shadow of error."[21]

But it is pride which exercises an incomparably greater sway over the soul to blind it and lead it into error, and pride sits in Modernism as in its own house, finding sustenance everywhere in its doctrines and lurking in its every aspect. It is pride which fills Modernists with that self-assurance by which they consider themselves and pose as the rule for all. It is pride which puffs them up with that vainglory which allows them to regard themselves as the sole possessors of knowledge, and makes them say, elated and inflated with presumption, "We are not as the rest of men," and which, lest they should seem as other men, leads them to embrace and to devise novelties even of the most absurd kind. It is pride which rouses in them the spirit of disobedience and causes them to demand a compromise between authority and liberty. It is owing to their pride that they seek to be the reformers of others while they forget to reform themselves, and that they are found to be utterly wanting in respect for authority, even for the supreme authority. Truly there is no road which leads so directly and so quickly to Modernism as pride. When a Catholic layman or a priest forgets the precept of the Christian life which obliges us to renounce ourselves if we would follow Christ and neglects to tear pride from his heart, then it is he who most of all is a fully ripe subject for the errors of Modernism. For this reason, Venerable Brethren, it will be your first duty to resist such victims of pride, to employ them only in the lowest and obscurest offices. The higher they try to rise, the lower let them be placed, so that the lowliness of their position may limit their power of causing damage. Examine most carefully your young clerics by yourselves and by the directors of your seminaries, and when you find the spirit of pride among them reject them without compunction from the priesthood. Would to God that this had always been done with the vigilance and constancy which were required!

41. If we pass on from the moral to the intellectual causes of Modernism, the first and the chief which presents itself is ignorance. Yes, these very Modernists who seek to be esteemed as Doctors of the Church, who speak so loftily of modern philosophy and show such contempt for scholasticism, have embraced the one with all its false glamour, precisely because their ignorance of the other has left them without the means of being able to recognize confusion of thought and to refute sophistry. Their whole system, containing as it does errors so many and so great, has been born of the union between faith and false philosophy.

42. Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of 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 tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science."[22] They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, 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"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone 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 embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.''

The Modernists pass judgment on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, 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 falsifying its origin, character, and rights, and by freely repeating the calumnies of its adversaries. To the entire band of Modernists may be applied those words which Our predecessor sorrowfully wrote: "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 ignorance, and the enemy of light, science, and progress.''[23] This being so, Venerable Brethren, there is little reason to wonder that the Modernists vent all their bitterness and hatred on Catholics who zealously fight the battles of the Church. There is no species of insult which they do not heap upon them, but their usual course is to charge them with ignorance or obstinacy. When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that renders them redoubtable, they seek to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack. This policy towards Catholics is the more invidious in that they belaud with admiration which knows no bounds the writers who range themselves on their side, hailing their works, exuding novelty in every page, with a chorus 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 tradition and the ecclesiastical magisterium. When one of their number falls under the condemnations of the Church the rest of them, to the disgust of good Catholics, gather round him, loudly and publicly applaud him, and hold him up in veneration as almost a martyr for 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 rank among the learned, and both classes goaded internally by curiosity and pride, not infrequently surrender and give themselves up to Modernism.

43. And here we have already some of the artifices employed by Modernists to exploit their wares. What efforts do they not make to win new recruits! They seize upon professorships in the seminaries and universities, and gradually make of them chairs of pestilence. In sermons from the pulpit they disseminate their doctrines, although possibly in utterances which are veiled. In congresses they express their teachings more openly. In their social gatherings they introduce them and commend them to others. 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 pseudonyms to trap the incautious reader into believing in a multitude of Modernist writers. In short, with feverish activity they leave nothing untried in act, speech, and writing. And with what result? We have to deplore the spectacle of many young men, once full of promise and capable of rendering great services to the Church, now gone astray. It is also a subject of grief to Us that many others who, while they certainly do not go so far as the former, have yet been so infected by breathing a poisoned atmosphere, as to think, speak, and write with a degree of laxity which ill becomes a Catholic. 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 communities If they treat of biblical questions, it is upon Modernist principles; if they write history, they carefully, and with ill-concealed satisfaction, drag into the light, on the plea of telling the whole truth, everything that appears to cast a stain upon the Church. Under the sway of certain a priori conceptions they destroy as far as they can the pious traditions of the people, and bring into disrespect certain relics highly venerable from their antiquity. They are possessed by the empty desire of having their names upon the lips of the public, and they know they would never succeed in this were they to say only what has always been said by all men. Meanwhile 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 in themselves than by the spirit in which they write, and by the encouragement they thus give to the aims of the Modernists.

44. Against this host of grave errors, and its secret and open advance, Our predecessor Leo Xlll, of happy memory, worked strenuously, both in his words and his acts, especially as regards the study of the Bible. But, as we have seen, the Modernists are not easily deterred by such weapons. With an affectation of great submission and respect, they proceeded to twist the words of the Pontiff to their own sense, while they described his action as directed against others than themselves. Thus the evil has gone on increasing from day to day. We, therefore, Venerable Brethren, have decided to suffer no longer delay, and to adopt measures which are more efficacious. We exhort and conjure you to see to it that in this most grave matter no one shall be in a position 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 educators and professors of clerics, and in a very special way of the superiors of religious communities.

45. In the first place, with regard to studies, We will and strictly 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 regarded as something investigated with an excess of subtlety, or taught without sufficient consideration; anything which is not in keeping with the certain results of later times; anything, in short, which is altogether destitute of probability, We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present generations."[24] And let it be clearly understood above all things that when We prescribe scholastic philosophy We understand chiefly that which the Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us, and We, therefore, declare that all the ordinances of Our predecessor on this subject continue fully in force, and, as far as may be necessary, We do decree anew, and confirm, and order that they shall be strictly observed by all. In seminaries where they have been neglected it will be for the Bishops to exact and require their observance in the future; and let this apply also to the superiors of religious orders. Further, We admonish professors to bear well in mind that they cannot set aside Saint Thomas, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave disadvantage.

46. On this philosophical foundation the theological edifice is to be carefully raised. Promote the study of theology, Venerable Brethren, by all means in your power, so that your clerics on leaving the seminaries may carry with them a deep admiration and love of it, and always find in it a source of delight. For "in the vast and varied abundance of studies opening before the mind desirous of truth, it is known to everyone that theology occupies such a commanding place, that according to an ancient adage of the wise it is the duty of the other arts and sciences to serve it, and to wait upon it after the manner of handmaidens."[25] We will add that We deem worthy of praise those who with full respect for tradition, the Fathers, and the ecclesiastical magisterium, endeavor, with well-balanced judgment, and guided by Catholic principles (which is not always the case), to illustrate positive theology by throwing upon it the light of true history. It is certainly necessary that positive theology should be held in greater appreciation than it has been in the past, but this must be done without detriment to scholastic theology; and those are to be disapproved as Modernists who exalt positive theology in such a way as to seem to despise the scholastic.

47. With regard to secular studies, let it suffice to recall here what our predecessor has admirably said: ''Apply yourselves energetically to the study of natural sciences: in which department the things that have been so brilliantly discovered, and so usefully applied, to the admiration of the present age, will be the object of praise and commendation to those who come after us."[26] But this is to be done without interfering with sacred studies, as Our same predecessor prescribed in these most weighty words: "If 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 the splendor of the former estate is dimmed, they have been disfigured by perverse doctrines and monstrous errors."[27] We ordain, therefore, that the study of natural sciences in the seminaries be carried out according to this law.

48. All these prescriptions, both Our own and those of Our predecessor, are to be kept in view whenever there is question of choosing directors and professors for seminaries and Catholic Universities. Anyone who in any way is found to be tainted with Modernism is to be excluded without compunction from these offices, whether of government or of teaching, and those who already occupy them are to be removed. The same policy is to be adopted towards those who openly or secretly lend countenance to Modernism either by extolling the Modernists and excusing their culpable conduct, or by carping at scholasticism, and the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, or by refusing obedience to ecclesiastical authority in any of its depositories; 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 secular. 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 in this matter with prudence and with vigor.

49. 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 hateth the proud and the obstinate mind. For the future the doctorate of theology and canon law must never be conferred on anyone who has not first of all made the regular course of scholastic philosophy; if conferred, 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 nation.[28] Clerics and priests inscribed 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.

50. It is also the duty of the Bishops to prevent writings of Modernists, or whatever savors of Modernism or promotes it, from being read when they have been published, and to hinder their publication when they have not. No books or papers or periodicals whatever of this kind are to be permitted to seminarists or university students. The injury to them would be not less than that which is 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 evilly disposed themselves, are ill-instructed in theological studies and imbued with modern philosophy, and strive to make this harmonize with the faith, and, as they say, to turn it to the profit of the faith. The name and reputation of these authors cause them to read without suspicion, and they are, therefore, all the more dangerous in gradually preparing the way for Modernism.

51. To add some more general directions, Venerable Brethren, in a matter of such moment, We order that 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 remove writings of this kind, but their number has now grown to such an extent that it is hardly possible to subject them all to censure. Hence it happens sometimes that the remedy 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 clamor of evil men, shall, gently, by all means, but firmly, do each his own part in this work, remembering the injunctions of Leo XIII in the Apostolic Constitution Officiorum: "Let the Ordinaries, acting in this also as Delegates of the Apostolic See, exert themselves to proscribe and to put out of reach of the faithful injurious books or other writings printed or circulated in their dioceses."[29] In this passage the Bishops, it is true, receive an authorization, but they have also a charge laid upon them. Let no Bishop think that he fulfills his 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 elsewhere the permission which is commonly called the Imprimatur, both because this may be merely simulated, and because it may have been granted through carelessness or too much indulgence or excessive trust placed in the author, which last has perhaps sometimes happened in the religious orders. Besides, just as the same food does not agree with everyone, 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 give him ample faculty for the purpose and We lay upon him the obligation of doing so. Let all this be done in a fitting manner, and in certain cases it will suffice to restrict the prohibition to the clergy; but in all cases it will be obligatory on Catholic booksellers not to put on sale books condemned by the Bishop. And while We are treating of this subject, We wish the Bishops to see to it that booksellers do not, through desire for gain, engage in evil trade. It is certain that in the catalogs of some of them the books of the Modernists are not infrequently announced with no small praise. If they refuse obedience, let the Bishops, after due admonition, have no hesitation in depriving them of the title of Catholic booksellers. This applies, and with still more reason, to those who have the title of Episcopal booksellers. If they have that of Pontifical booksellers, let them be denounced to the Apostolic See. Finally, We remind all of Article XXVI of the above-mentioned Constitution Officiorum: "All those who have obtained an apostolic faculty to read and keep forbidden books, are not thereby authorized to read and keep books and periodicals forbidden by the local Ordinaries unless the apostolic faculty expressly concedes permission to read and keep books condemned by anyone whomsoever."

52. It is not enough to hinder the reading and the sale of bad books -- it is also necessary to prevent them from being published. Hence, let the Bishops use the utmost strictness in granting permission to print. Under the rules of the Constitution Officiorum, many publications require the authorization of the Ordinary, and in certain dioceses (since the Bishop cannot personally make himself acquainted with them all) it has been the custom to have a suitable number of official censors for the examination of writings. We have the highest esteem for this institution of censors, 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 whose age, knowledge, and prudence will enable them to follow the safe and golden means 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 Imprimatur, which must be preceded by the Nihil obstat and the name of the censor. In the Roman Curia official censors shall be appointed in the same way as elsewhere, and the duty of nominating them shall appertain to the Master of the Sacred Palace, after they have been proposed to the Cardinal Vicar and have been approved and accepted by the Sovereign Pontiff. It will also be the office of the Master of the Sacred Palace to select the censor for each writing. Permission for publication will be granted by him as well as by the Cardinal Vicar or his Vicegerent, and this permission, as above prescribed, must he preceded by the Nihil obstat and the name of the censor. Only on a very rare and exceptional occasion, and on the prudent decision of the Bishop, shall it be possible to omit mention of the censor. The name of 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 inconvenience either while he is engaged in the examination of a writing or in case he should withhold 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 character, knowledge, and orthodoxy of the candidate. We admonish religious superiors of their most solemn duty never to allow anything to be published by any of their subjects without permission from themselves and from the Ordinary. Finally, We affirm and declare that the title of censor with which a person may be honored has no value whatever, and can never be adduced to give credit to the private opinions of him who holds it.

53. Having said this much in general, We now ordain in particular a more careful observance of Article XLII of the above-mentioned Constitution Officiorum, according to which "it is forbidden to secular priests, without the previous consent of the Ordinary, to undertake the editorship of papers or periodicals." This permission shall be withdrawn from any priest who makes a wrong use of it after having received an admonition thereupon. With regard to priests who are correspondents or collaborators of periodicals, as it happens not infrequently that they contribute matter infected with Modernism to their papers or periodicals, let the Bishops see to it that they do not offend in this manner; and if they do, let them warn the offenders and prevent them from writing. We solemnly charge in like manner the superiors of religious orders that they fulfill the same duty, and should they fail in it, let the Bishops make due provision with authority from the Supreme 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 as soon as possible. The Bishop shall have the same right even when the censor has seen nothing objectionable in a publication.

54. We have already mentioned congresses and public gatherings as among the means used by the Modernists to 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 resolutions or petitions be allowed that would imply a usurpation of sacred authority, and that absolutely nothing be said in them which savors 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 shall not be lawful for priests of other dioceses to be present 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 pastors, let them take it for certain that the sacerdotal ministry, if not exercised under the guidance of the Bishops, can never be either holy, or very fruitful, or worthy of respect.''[30]

55. But of what avail, Venerable Brethren, will be all Our commands and prescriptions if they be not dutifully and firmly carried out? In order that this may be done it has seemed expedient to us to extend to all dioceses the regulations which the Bishops of Umbria, with great wisdom, laid down for theirs many years ago. "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 pernicious effects of such diffusion are being perpetuated, this sacred Assembly, following the example of Saint 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 suppressing the evil at the outset and preventing it spreading for the ruin of souls or, worse still, gaining strength and growth."[31] We decree, therefore, that in every diocese a council of this kind, which We are pleased to name the "Council of Vigilance,'' be instituted without delay. The priests called to form part in it shall be chosen somewhat after the manner above prescribed for the censors, and they shall meet every two months on an appointed day in the presence of the Bishop. They shall be bound to secrecy as to their deliberations and decisions, and in their functions shall be included the following: they shall watch most carefully for every trace and sign of Modernism both in publications and in teaching, and to preserve the clergy and the young from it they shall take all prudent, prompt, and efficacious measures. Let them combat novelties of words, remembering the admonitions of Leo XIII: "It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications a style inspired 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 social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind."[32] Language of the kind here indicated is not to be tolerated either in books or in lectures. The Councils must not neglect the books treating of the pious traditions of different places or of sacred relics. Let them not permit such questions to be discussed in journals or periodicals destined to foster piety, either with expressions savoring of mockery or contempt, or 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 based on prejudiced opinion. Concerning sacred relics, let this be the rule: if 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 veneration 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 prescription 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 Relics: "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 superstitious." In passing judgment on pious traditions let it always be borne in mind that in this matter the Church uses the greatest prudence, and that she does not allow traditions of this kind to be narrated in books except with the utmost caution and with the insertion of the declaration imposed by Urban VIII; and even then she does not guarantee the truth of the fact narrated; she simply does not forbid belief in things for which human evidence is not wanting. On this matter the Sacred Congregation of Rites, thirty years ago, decreed as follows: "These apparitions or revelations have neither been approved nor condemned by the Holy See, which has simply allowed them to be believed on purely human faith, on the tradition which they relate, corroborated by testimony and documents worthy of credence."[33] Anyone who follows this rule has no cause to fear. For the devotion based on any apparition, in so far as it regards the fact itself, that is to say, in so far as the devotion is relative, always implies the condition of the fact being true; while in so far as it is absolute, it is always 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 prescriptions of the Roman Pontiffs.

56. Lest what We have laid down thus far should pass 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 the things which have been decreed in this Our Letter, and on the doctrines that find currency among the clergy, and especially in the seminaries and other Catholic institutions, those not excepted which are not subject to the Ordinary, and We impose the like obligation on the Generals of religious orders with regard to those who are under them.

57. 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. As a fresh answer to such accusations, which the history of the Christian religion refutes by never-failing evidence, it is Our intention to establish 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 advance of science and every other department of knowledge may be promoted under the guidance and teaching of Catholic truth. God grant that We may happily realize Our design with the assistance of all those who bear a sincere love for the Church of ChriSaint But of this We propose to speak on another occasion.

Meanwhile, Venerable Brethren, fully confident in your zeal and energy, We beseech for you with Our whole heart the abundance of heavenly light, so that in the midst of this great danger to souls from the insidious invasions of error upon every hand, you may see clearly what ought to be done, and labor to do it with all your strength and courage. May Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of our faith, be with you in His power; and may the Immaculate Virgin, the destroyer of all heresies, be with you by her prayers and aid. And We, as a pledge of Our affection and of the Divine solace in adversity, most lovingly grant to you, your clergy and people, the Apostolic Benediction.

58. Given at Saint Peter's, Rome, September 8, 1907, in the fifth year of Our Pontificate. PIUS X, POPE

REFERENCES

1. Acts 20:30.
2. Titus 1:10
3. ii Tim. 3:13.
4. De Revelatione, can. 1.
5. Ibid., can. 2.
6. De Fide, can. 3. 7. De Revelatione, can. 3.
8. Gregory XVI, encyclical of June 25, 1834, Singulari Nos.
9. Brief to the Bishop of Breslau, June 15, 1857.
10. Gregory IX EpiSaint ad Magistros theol. paris. July 7, 1223.
11. Proposition 29, condemned by Leo X in the bull of May 16, 1520, Exsurge Domine: Via nobis facta est enervandi auctoritatem Conciliorum et libere contradicendi eorum gestis et iudicandi eorum decreta, at confidenter confitendi quidquid verum videtur, sive probatum fuerit, sive reprobatum a quocumque Concilio.
12. Sess. Vll, De Sacramentis in genere, can. 5.
13. Proposition 2: "Propositio, quae statuit, potestatem a Deo Datam Ecclesiae ut communicaretur Pastoribus, qui sunt eius ministri pro salute animarum; sic intellecta, ut a communitate fidelium in Pastores derivetur ecclesiastici ministerii ac regiminis potestas: haeretica." Proposition 3: "Insuper, quae .statuit Romanun Pontificem esse caput ministeriale; sic explicata ut Romanus Pontifex non a Christo in persona beati Petri, sed ab Ecclesia potestatem ministerii accipiat, qua velut Petri successor, verus Christi vicarius ac totius Ecclesiae caput pollet in universa Ecclesia: haerectica."
14. Pius IX,encyclical of November 9, 1846, Qui pluribus.
15. Syllabus, Prop. 5.
16. Constitution Dei Filius, cap. 4.
17. Loc. cit.
18. Rom. 1:21-22.
19. Vatican Council, De Revelatione con. 2.
20. EpiSaint 28.
21. Gregory XVI, encyclical of June 25, 1834, Singulari Nos.
22. Syllabus, Prop. 13.
23. Motu Proprio of March 14, 1891, Ut mysticam.
24. Leo Xlll, encyclical of August 4, 1879, Aeterni Patris.
25. Leo Xlll, Apostolic letter of December 10, 1889, In magna.
26. Leo Xlll, allocution of March 7, 1880.
27. Loc. cit.
28. Cf. ASS, 29:359ff
29. Cf. ASS, 30:39ff.
30. Leo Xlll, encyclical of February 10, 1884, Nobilissima Gallorum.
31. Acts of the Congress of the Bishops of Umbria, November, 1849, tit. 2, art. 6.
32. Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, January 27, 1902.
33. Decree of May 2, 1877


20 posted on 07/09/2012 3:57:27 AM PDT by Robert Drobot (Fiat voluntas tua)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson