Pope Saint Pius X: Model of Papal Authority

On September 1, 1910, Pope Saint Pius X issued the last, some say the most important, of his three anti- Modernist pronouncements. It was the Motu proprio Sacrorum antistitum, that contained the famous "Oath Against Modernism". A study of this Motu proprio presents the finest representation in modern history of a Pope who truly obeyed Christ's Petrine command to "Feed My sheep" and "strengthen thy brethren".

The entire Catholic world -- to this day -- owes an immeasurable debt of gratitude to Pope Saint Pius X, even though his work has been severely undermined by high-level Catholic churchmen in the last 40 years.

Yet the Holy Pontiff's writings remain, and his actions still may be studied. If we wish to know a true model of Papal Authority, an ideal to which all others may strive, a standard by which to measure all else, a guiding light for our modern world, we need look no further than Saint Pius X, the greatest Pope of the 20th Century.

Pius X's first encyclical, issued two months after his elevation to the Papal throne, was entitled E Supremi; the programmatic encyclical for his entire papacy. In this document, Pius clearly recognizes his first duty to guard the integrity of the Catholic Faith, and to protect the flock entrusted to him from poisonous doctrine. It is a theme to which he will return continually throughout his reign.

Because he was a Thomist, Pius looked at the world as it really was, without any dreamy notions. And because he was a saint, he looked at the world from God's point of view. It was clear to him "that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's Kingdom itself."[1]

These "enemies of the cross of Christ" were not only anti-clerical forces outside the Church. No, the greatest threat that Pius X recognized was the enemies of Christ inside the Church: priests, theologians, and laity who espoused a perverse system called "Modernism," rightly denounced by Pius X as the "synthesis of all heresies". "The danger" he said, is "in the very veins and heart of the Church"[2]

Pius knew that this poison must be eradicated. "Rest assured, Venerable Brethren," Pius wrote, "that we on our side will use the greatest diligence to prevent the members of the clergy from being drawn to the snares of a new and fallacious science, which savoreth not of Christ, but with masked and cunning argument, strives to open the doors to the errors of rationalism and semi-rationalism."[3]

Pius did not simply talk a good line. Nor did he pray only. His duty, he knew, was to take effective action. Thus he proclaimed his intention "to hasten the work of God - and not merely by praying assiduously ... But more important still, by affirming both by word and deed and in the light of day, God's Supreme domination over man and all things, so that His right to command and His authority may be fully realized and respected."[4]

"We proclaim that we have no other program in the Supreme Pontificate" said the newly-elected Pius X, "but that 'of restoring all things in Christ' (Eph. 1:10), so that 'God may be all in all'."

Three years later, in the 1906 Encyclical Pieni l'animo, he gave voice to his reverential fear about the grave responsibility before God that the Petrine Office demands:

"With our soul full of fear for the strict account we shall have to give one day to the Prince of Pastors, Jesus Christ, with regard to the flock entrusted to us by Him, we pass our days in continued anxiety to preserve the faithful, as far as possible, from the most pernicious evils by which human society is at present afflicted." [5]

Pius knew that if he did not protect the flock from poisonous doctrine, if he allowed heretical priests to pervert the minds of Catholics, if he left the flock at the mercy of apostate teachers who operate freely inside of the Church, that God would hold him accountable for his dereliction of duty, and that he, the Pope himself, would lose his soul.

The knowledge of this strict accounting before God caused Pius to tremble with fear, and no doubt, was one of the prime motivations for his effective actions. It is a normal and healthy Catholic conviction. Saint Bernard, in fact, wrote to the Pope of his day that if the Pope did not correct his wayward bishops, he (the Pope) would not be saved.[6] "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" says the psalmist. The fear of the Lord is what also makes a courageous, effective Roman Pontiff.

One can only imagine what Pius X would say about those today who remain inactive while homosexual priests seduce children and rape teenage boys, and of those who do not discipline bishops who allow these perverse clergymen to defile -- and ruin for life -- the little ones of Christ's flock. How would Pius react to today's Church leaders who are so delinquent in their duty that Catholic parents must home school to protect their children's faith against heretical and perverse programs in Catholic schools?

In any event, when it comes to "restoring all things in Christ," Pius was as good as his word, as is evident when in 1907 the battle against Modernism was joined.

The first skirmish between Catholic truth and Modernism occurred in the field of biblical studies. It was countered by Pope Leo XIII's 1893 Encyclical on the study of sacred Scripture, Providentissimus Deus.

Father Alfred Loisy, a prominent figure of Modernism, lost his Chair of Sacred Scripture at the Institut Catholique de Paris immediately after the Encyclical's publication. Both Father Loisy and Father George Tyrell, a leading Modernist in England, would later refuse to submit to the anti- Modernist decrees. They were excommunicated by Pope Pius X and died outside the Church.

Pope Saint Pius X launched his attack against Modernism with the Syllabus of Errors, Lamentabile sane exitu, issued on July 4, 1907. Here Pius X condemned Modernism's principal errors listed as 65 "Condemned Propositions".

Five months later, on December 8, 1907, Pius X issued the blockbuster encyclical Pascendi. This masterful text unmasked Modernists by exposing their seemingly elusive and impenetrable doctrine.

So completely did Pius X explain this heresy that Modernists who did not convert would tell their initiates that if they wanted to fully understand the Modernist system, read Pascendi.[7] A brief explanation of Modernism appears elsewhere in this issue (See "Modernism in a Nutshell"). A key tenet of modernism is that religion must change for the sake of changing times.

Pius knew it was his first duty as Pope to protect the integrity of the Catholic Faith. In the first lines of Pascendi, Pius stated that 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 gainsay of knowledge falsely so called". He explains that in the face of this Modernist heresy, "We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty ..."[8]

Pius knew that the deadly system of Modernism destroyed not only all idea of religion but all idea of truth. In Pascendi, he laid bare the doctrine of Modernists, and also explained Modernism's causes: Pride, curiosity and ignorance.

In the same encyclical, Pius established effective remedies to Modernism, which gave teeth to the document. For seminarians and all theological students, he ordered firm adherence to the philosophy and theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas. "We will and strictly order" says Pius X in Pascendi, "that scholasticism be made the basis of sacred sciences."[9] Thomism is the remedy to Modernism.

* the exclusion from seminaries and universities of all directors and professors "found in any way imbued with Modernism,"

* episcopal vigilance over all publications to detect any taint of Modernism in them, and to allow no books infected with Modernism sold in Catholic bookstores,

* the establishment in each diocese of "Vigilance Committees" composed of priests chosen by the bishops, who are to be on the watch for any evidence of Modernist tendencies.[10]

These measures, as forceful as they were, he concluded were not enough. His watchword was vigilance, vigilance and ever more vigilance. Thus three years later, to counter what he knew to be an enemy "inside the gates" who never quits, he promulgated the Motu proprio Sacrocrum Antstium that contained the famous Oath Against Modernism.

The Motu proprio itself contains not only the Oath, but also an Introduction and Conclusion by Pius X that explain what the saintly pontiff hoped to achieve by the document's promulgation. Unlike the Oath, the Motu proprio's Introduction and Conclusion are seldom found in English.

Thankfully, the eminent theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton[11] provided an English translation of these important passages in a brilliant American Ecclesiastical Review article called "The Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background to the Oath Against Modernism".[12]

In this 1960 article, Msgr. Fenton called the Oath Against Modernism "the most important and most influential document issued by the Holy See during the course of the 20th Century. It is a magnificent statement of Catholic truth in the face of errors which were being disseminated within the Church by the cleverest enemies the Mystical Body of Christ has encountered in the course of its history."[13]

It seems that Msgr. Fenton, one of the last traditional Catholic theologians in the United States, sensed the "Churchquake" that might befall the Catholic world in the wake of Pope John XXIII's Council. He was probably the only theologian from the period who warned that there is no guarantee that the Council will be a success. It is possible that Vatican II might fail.[14]

Msgr. Fenton called the anti-Modernist Motu proprio "the most important" of Pius X's documents against Modernism.

"Because of the tremendous intrinsic importance of the Oath itself", he said, "and by reason of its function in the doctrinal life of the Catholic Church, the papal document containing this Oath definitely de- serves serious study by the present generation of theologians."

Elsewhere he mentioned that the Oath, and the Motu proprio in which it was promulgated, contain some "badly needed lessons for the clergy of our day". Clearly, by 1960, there were growing numbers of priests and theologians who succumbed to the same errors that the anti-Modernist Oath sought to eradicate.[15]

The Motu proprio, issued on September 1, 1910, contained an Introduction in which Saint Pius X declares:

"We believe that no bishop is ignorant of the fact that the wily Modernists have not abandoned their plans for disturbing the peace of the Church since they were unmasked by the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis. For they have not ceased to seek out new recruits and to gather them into a secret alliance (foedus clandestinu [16] ). Nor have they ceased, along with their new associates to inject the poison of their own teachings into the veins of the Christian body-politic by turning out anonymous and pseudonymous books and articles. If, after re-reading of the above-mentioned encyclical Pascendi, this audacity, which has caused Us so much grief be considered very carefully, it will become quite apparent that these men are just as the encyclical describes them: enemies who are all the more to be feared by reason of their very nearness to us. They are men who pervert their ministry in such a way as to bait their hooks with poisoned meat in order to catch the unwary. They carry with them a form of doctrine in which the summary of all errors is contained."

Pius then reiterates the duty of the Pope and the bishops to protect the integrity of the Faith and defend the flock:

"While this plague is spreading abroad over that very part of the Lord's field from which the best fruits might be expected, it is the duty of all bishops to exert themselves in defense of the Catholic faith and most diligently to see to it that the integrity of the divine deposit suffers no loss. Likewise, it is most definitely Our duty to obey the commands of Christ the Savior, Who gave to Peter, whose position of authority We, though unworthy, have succeeded, the order: 'Confirm thy Brethren'. Thus, so that the souls of the good may be strengthened in the present struggle, We have considered it opportune to repeat the following statements and commands of the encyclical Pascendi"[17]

Msgr. Fenton, already in 1960, laments that this Motu proprio "contains some reminders of the truths in the theological and in the historical orders which are far too seldom insisted upon today".[18]

Returning to the theme of Papal duty, Msgr. Fenton explains, "The Sacrorum antistitum and the anti- Modernist oath it contains were intended by Saint Pius X as works he was required to perform in order to carry out his own divinely imposed responsibility to confirm the faith of his fellow members of the Catholic Church and to strengthen the efforts of the bishops to see to it that their flocks received the divinely revealed message in all its integrity and purity." Fenton continues, "Actually, the responsibility, which Saint Pius X had assumed when he accepted the burden of the papacy, demanded that he take the most effective means at his disposal to protect the faith of Catholics."[19]

He then explains why protecting the faith of Catholics is the Pope's first obligation. "The greatest danger to the faith of the members of the true Church of Jesus Christ exists when some members of His Church actually teach or even show sympathy for doctrine contradictory to or incompatible with the body of Catholic dogma without receiving any reproof from those whom God has commissioned and obligated to protect the purity and the integrity of the Catholic Faith," says Fenton. "Saint Pius X was acutely conscious of the fact that many influential Catholics were teaching or encouraging doctrines opposed to the divinely revealed Catholic message long after those erroneous doctrines had been pointed out and condemned by the highest teaching authority within the Church. And this saintly Pope was brilliant enough to realize that, unless he took some drastic action, a great number of Catholics might be persuaded to imagine that de facto the Church at least tacitly tolerated the doctrinal deviations of the Modernists and their sympathizers. Thus he directed the severe commands of the Sacrorum antistitum towards the protection of the faith that was his most important responsibility as the Vicar of Christ on earth."[20]

Msgr. Fenton observes that Pius X's 1910 actions demonstrate, contrary to liberal legend, that the Modernists did not recant and obey after Pius issued Pascendi. In truth, Pius speaks of a secret alliance, a foedus clandestiunum of Modernists still active three years after Pascendi was issued. "At the time that Sacrorum antistitum was being written," says Fenton, "the integrity of the Catholic Faith was being undermined by modernist clergymen and their sympathizers ... a formidable effort was being made to persuade members of the true Church to reject as antiquated and outdated certain teachings which were actually presented by the Church's magisterium as belonging to the deposit of divine public revelation."

These men, says Msgr. Fenton, "were guilty of using their priestly power and their priestly position to counter, rather than advance, the work of Jesus Christ, Our Lord".[21]

Msgr. Fenton understood the sacerdotal office of the priesthood too well, to be fooled by the notion of a kinder, gentler clergy who tolerate heresy, and dialogue with error, in the name of a false charity.

"The work of the priesthood" says Msgr. Fenton, "is directed toward the glory of God, which is to be achieved and obtained in the salvation of souls. This objective is to be obtained only by those who pass from this life living the life of sanctifying grace. And the life of sanctifying grace cannot exist apart from the true faith, until such time as the faith itself is replaced by the Beatific Vision. Thus the priestly ministry in the true Church of Jesus Christ necessarily seeks to induce men to accept God's supernatural teaching with the certain assent of divine faith and works to increase the perfection and the intensity of the faith in those who already possess this virtue. Hence any effort on the part of a Catholic priest to influence people to reject or to pass over a truth revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church's magisterium definitely constitutes a perversion of the sacerdotal ministry."[22]

Tragically, there is no shortage of these "doctrinal perverts" who are priests in good standing, and who are allowed to run free in today's postconciliar "Civilization of Love" Church. In fact, the clergymen who are now castigated and banished are those who teach and believe the same doctrine as did Pope St. Pius X and Msgr. Fenton, and who fight against the same errors as did they.[23]

Later, Msgr. Fenton stresses the duty of Church authority to take action against wayward clergymen:

"No one has ever been as well placed to harm the true Church and to counteract its essential work as a priest in good standing. If such a man, by his preaching, his teaching, or his writing, actually sets forth the kind of teaching condemned in the anti- Modernist documents Lamentabile sane exitu and Pascendi dominici gregis, or if he works to discredit the loyal defenders of Catholic dogma without receiving any repudiation or reproof from those to whom the apostolic deposit of divine revelation has been entrusted, the Catholic people are in grave danger of being deceived."[24]

The forcefulness with which Msgr. Fenton wrote these words seems to indicate that laxity of discipline against wayward clergymen was well underway under "good Pope John". This laxity would worsen into the free-fall of discipline that exists today.

Msgr. Fenton concludes his commentary on the Introduction saying that "Saint Pius X makes it very clear that the bishops of the Catholic Church were bound in conscience by the obligations of their office to act energetically against this teaching that contradicted the divinely revealed truth proposed as such by the true Church. The 'defense of the Catholic faith' and strenuous efforts 'to see that the integrity of the divine deposit suffer no loss' are definitely not works of supererogation. These are duties prescribed by Our Lord Himself for the leaders of the Church, which He has purchased by His blood."[25]

The conclusion of the Motu proprio, says Msgr. Fenton, is even more en- lightening than the Introduction. Here Pope Saint Pius X says:

"Moved by the seriousness of the evil that is increasing every day, an evil, which We cannot put off confronting without the most grave danger, We have decided to issue and to repeat these commands. For it is no longer the case, as it was in the beginning, of dealing with disputants who come forward in the clothing of sheep. Now we are faced with open and bitter enemies from within our own household, who, in agreement with the outstanding opponents of the Church, are working for the overthrow of the faith. They are men whose audacity against the wisdom that has come down from Heaven increases daily. They arrogate to themselves the right to correct this revealed wisdom as if it were something corrupt, to renew it as if it were something that had become obsolete, to improve it and to adapt it to the dictates, the progress, and the comforts of the age as if it had been opposed to the good of society and not merely opposed to the levity of a few men."[26]

Pope Saint Pius X seems here to prophesy the program of aggiornamento that would follow the Council.

At this point, Msgr. Fenton provides a translation of the directives concerning the Oath Against Modernism itself. Pius X decrees:

"But in order to do away with all suspicion that Modernism may secretly enter in [to the seminaries], not only do We will that the commands listed under n. 2 above be obeyed absolutely, but We also order that all teachers, before their first lectures at the beginning of the scholastic year, must show to their bishop the text which each shall decide to use in teaching, or the questions of these that are to be treated, and that furthermore throughout the year itself the kind of teaching of each course be examined, and that if such teaching be found to run counter to sound doctrine, that this will result in the immediate dismissal of the teacher. Finally [We will] that over and above the profession of faith [the teacher] should take an oath before his bishop, according to the formula that follows, and that he should sign his name"[27]

Pius X then ordered the making of the Tridentine- Vatican I Profession of Faith and the taking of the Oath Against Modernism. The teacher is to sign his name to the Oath he has taken. "The context" says Fenton, "would seem to indicate that it was the mind of St. Pius X that this Oath should be taken every year at the beginning of the academic term.."[28]

"All these prescriptions, both Our own and those of Our predecessors, are to be kept in view whenever there is a question of choosing directors and teachers for seminaries and for 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 administration or of teaching, and those who already occupy such offices are to be removed. The same policy is to be followed with regard to those who openly or secretly lend support to Modernism, either by praising 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 the deposit- aries; and with regard to those who manifest a love of novelty in history, archeology, and biblical exegesis; and finally with regard to those who neglect the sacred sciences or appear to prefer the secular [sciences] to them. On this entire subject, Venerable Brethren, and especially with regard to the choice of teachers, you cannot be too watchful or too careful, for as a rule the students are modeled according to the pattern of their teachers. Strong in the consciousness of your duty, act always in this matter with prudence and vigor."

Pius then extends the same directives to those who aspire to become priests. No young man who was infected by Modernist errors was to be allowed to become or to remain a candidate for Holy Orders:

"Equal diligence and severity are to be used in examining and selecting candidates for Holy Orders. Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty! God hates the proud and obstinate mind."

"In the future the doctorate in theology or Canon Law must never be conferred on anyone who has not first of all made the regular course in scholastic philosophy. If such a doctorate is conferred, it is to be held as null and void."[29]

Pius then extended to all nations the rule that "Clerics and priests in- scribed in a Catholic institute or university must not in the future follow in civil universities those courses for which there are chairs in Catholic institutes to which they belong."

Msgr. Fenton, a staunch opponent of liberalism, observes that these anti- Modernist directives "went against the liberal Catholic spirit of which Modernism was the outstanding expression. All of them were likewise unpopular as calculated to arouse the antagonism of the enemies who attacked the Church from the outside. All of them were duly denounced as regretted as obscurantist."[30]

Today, however, these anti-Modernist directives are openly denounced by countless "priests in good standing"[31] who receive no reproof from their bishops, from the Vatican's Congregation for the Clergy under Cardinal Castríllôn Hoyos, or from the Pope himself. This is because, as we shall see, our highest Vatican leaders are imbued with the "liberal Catholic spirit of which Modernism was the outstanding expression".

Msgr. Fenton further explains the duty of the Pope and the bishop to discipline priests who promote heresy. Basing himself on Pope Pius XII's May 29, 1954 sermon for the canonization of Pope Saint Pius X, Fenton writes:

"In Si Diligis, [the canonization sermon], Pope Pius XII explains the directives issued by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi and in Sacrorum antistitum. The members of the apostolic hierarchy of jurisdiction, the Pope and the residential bishops throughout the world are responsible before God Himself for the teaching in the Catholic Church. They have full responsibility ... to see to it that the faithful of Christ receive His message in all of its purity and integrity. Naturally if they themselves [that is, the Pope and the bishops] contradict, or transform, or withhold any portion of the revealed truth, which has been entrusted to them, they will have been recreant to the commission they have received from Our Lord Himself. And, in precisely the same way, they are being disloyal to Our Lord if they allow those whom they use as helpers in the teaching work within the Church [the priests] to deny or to adulterate any of the divinely revealed doctrine."[32]

"The power and the dignity of the apostolic Catholic hierarchy" continues Fen- ton, "in the field of dogmatic teachings are beyond comparison. But with that duty and that authority goes the gravest responsibility which human beings are called upon to assume." He then goes on to say that the nature of the bishop's office demands that the bishop should take effective action against Modernism even if Pope Saint Pius X had not spoken out or issued these anti-Modernist decrees.[33] It is the nature of the bishop's office to fight heresy and preserve the purity of Catholic doctrine as it has always been taught throughout the centuries. The bishop does not need, nor should he await, an explicit order from the Pope to do so.

Tragically, today's hierarchy is top-heavy with men who are imbued with Modernism's perverse spirit of aggiornamento: "Out with the old, in with the new". The only "heresy" against which they will act with swift measures is the adherence of a priest to pre-Vatican II doctrine and worship.

For example, Bishop Joseph Fiorenza in Dallas knowingly had allowed two child-molesting priests to remain as "priests in good standing" in parish churches in his diocese. But on June 29, 2003, Father Stephen Zigrang, JCL, a priest in Bishop Fiorenza's diocese, announced that he would no longer say the Novus Ordo, but celebrate only the Latin Tridentine Mass. Bishop Fiorenza evicted Father Zigrang from his parish within two days.[34]

All traditional catechisms and moral theology manuals explain that an oath is an act of religion. It is a teaching that flows from the Second Commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord Thy God in vain." The Oath against Modernism is thus a solemn act that im- poses grave obligations.

"An oath is not something to be taken lightly" says Msgr. Fenton. "And the man who makes this Oath against Modernism calls upon God to witness that he reverently submits whole- heartedly assents 'to all the condemnations, the declarations, and the commands which are contained in the encyclical Pascendi and the decree Lamentabili' ..." It would be careless and irreverent for any man who takes this Oath not to exert himself to find out exactly, and in detail, what he is promising before Almighty God.

Fenton's words at this point should strike terror into the hearts of the vast majority of today's neo-Modernist hierarchy who cooperate in the postconciliar aggiornamento. "The man who taught or in any way aided in the dissemination or the protection of Modernist teaching in a seminary or in a Catholic university" after taking the Oath against Modernism "would mark himself, not only as a sinner against the Catholic Faith, but also as a common perjurer".

Of Pope Pius X's magnificent anti-Modernist Motu proprio, Msgr. Fenton concludes his article, "This was the rigorous and powerful direction of the Sacrorum antistitum. Quite obviously it was not and it still is not in accord with the taste of liberal Catholics. But it was and it remains a great expression of St. Pius X's desire to accomplish his mission as Christ's Vicar on earth. It was and it remains a tremendously effective factor for the protection of the little ones of Jesus Christ against the virus of Modernism."[35]

Seven years after Msgr. Fenton wrote these words, Pope Paul VI abolished the Oath Against Modernism, in July of 1967.[36]

The abolition of the Oath Against Modernism was an act that Bishop Rudolph Graber described as "incomprehensible"[37] Yet in a way, it is not difficult to understand. The Oath Against Modernism was scrapped because it is "not in accord with the taste of liberal Catholics". And it was liberal Catholicism that triumphed at Vatican II. It is liberal Catholicism that reigns in the Vatican to this day.[38]

Marcel Prelot, a senator of the Dobbs region of France rejoiced after the Council: "We had struggled for a century and a half to bring our opinions to prevail within the Church and had not succeeded. Finally there came Vatican II and we triumphed. From then on, the propositions and principles of liberal Catholicism have been definitively and officially accepted by Holy Church."[39]

This triumph of liberal Catholicism was due primarily to the new attitude toward error championed by Pope John XXIII, and which was on full display in his 1962 opening speech of the Second Vatican Council.

Here Pope John XXIII stated, "the Church is not to set aside or weaken its opposition to error, but "she prefers today to make use of the medicine of mercy, rather than of the arms of severity." She resists error, "by showing the validity of her teaching, rather than by issuing condemnations"[40]

1) The notion that error can be overcome simply by presenting the truths of Catholicism is a long-discredited principle of Father Felicitè de Lammennais, the foremost proponent of liberal Catholicism in the 19th Century who eventually died outside the Church.[41]

2) The setting up of the principle of mercy as op- posed to severity ignores the fact that in the mind of the Church, the condemnation of error is itself a work of mercy, since by pinning down error those laboring under it are corrected and others are preserved from falling into it.[42]

3) It ignores the historic reality that modernists will not abandon their heresies if one simply treats them with the "medicine of mercy". Saint Pius X already tried this approach only to have his kindness abused by Modernists, who are not men of good will. "For a moment they have bowed their head," said Pius X, "only to lift it more arrogantly than before"[43]

Nonetheless, this new Papal attitude, carried into our own day, casts off the constant vigilance that Pius X knew to be necessary to keep Modernism in check. As a result, liberalism, novelty and heresy run rampant throughout the Church, and there is no longer "protection of the little ones of Jesus Christ against the virus of Modernism." [44]

Part II of this article, to be published next month, will give a fuller account of the gradual breakdown of discipline from the time of Pius X to John XXIII, the rise of the "new theology," John XXIII's lifting the ban on previously censured heterodox theologians (who had not changed their unorthodox views) , the neo-modernist hijacking of Vatican II, and the triumph of liberal Catholicism at the Council and postconciliar period. For indeed, we now live through an unprecedented crisis of Faith wherein heresy, blasphemy, novelty and sacrilege are not only tolerated, but promoted in the name of Conciliar "renewal".

For example, the World Youth Day Papal Mass in 2002 implicitly placed an Imprimatur on some of the worst abuses of the postconciliar period, including liturgical dance, lay-lectors, "lay-Eucharistic ministers," pop-music at Church functions, slovenly and immodest dress during Mass, pagan rituals attached to Sunday Mass, and Eucharistic sacrilege. Canada's Vision Television broadcast close-ups of Pope John Paul II continually administering Communion-in-the-hand at his Mass.[45]

Every one of these practices stand condemned by the teaching and example of Pope Saint Pius X, who would be horrified if he walked in on World Youth Day proceedings. Likewise, Saint Pius X would be the first to recognize that the Conciliar aggiornamento is nothing more than a repackaging of the Modernist error that religious practice must continually evolve to satisfy the ever-changing needs of modern man.[46] Tragically, the aggiornamento of Vatican II is now the operative principle of those who occupy the highest levels of the Catholic hierarchy..[47]

The current disastrous state of the Church is a sad indication that the postconciliar Popes, even if well- intentioned, have failed in their primary duty of "guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints," and have failed to "reject profane novelties"[48]

Traveling the world means nothing, World Youth Day rallies with hundreds of thousands of youngsters boogieing to rock'n'roll mean nothing, ecumenical raproachments mean nothing, if the Pope's primary duty to safeguard the Faith is neglected. All else says Scripture, "is vanity".

Let us pray that Pope Saint Pius X, now reigning in Heaven, may hasten by his prayers the restoration of the Catholic Church to the health, vigor, piety and militant Faith it enjoyed under his glorious pontificate.

1. From Pascendi, quoted from A Symposium on the Life and Work of Pope Pius X; entry by Father James E. Earn, O.P, S.T.D., "Pius X and the Integrity of Doctrine" (Washington, Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, 1946) p. 50.

2. Pascendi, Pope Saint Pius X, Translation from The Popes Against Modern Errors, (Rockford: Tan Books, 1999) p. 181.

6. After the pathetic American Bishops' meeting in Dallas in June, 2002, that was to address the clerical scandals of homosexuality and pedophilia in the clergy, Rod Dreher of the National Review published a June 17, 2002 article entitled "Done in Dallas". It contained a report of a press conference in which Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln Nebraska called the United States hierarchy "a hapless bunch of bishops". The article says, "When an audience member asked Bruskewitz why Pope John Paul II has given the church in the U.S. so many lousy bishops, the bishop of Lincoln said he had no idea. Then he cited a letter that the medieval St. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote to the pope of his day, warning the pontiff that if he (the Pope) was going to be sent to hell, it would be because he failed to get rid of bad bishops."

7. According to Canon Barthod, who taught at the Seminary at Econe in the 1970s.

8. Pascendi, Pope Saint Pius X, par. 1. Translation from The Popes Against Modern Errors, p. 180.

9. Cited from Saint Pius X, Restorer of the Church, Yves Chiron (Kansas City, Angelus Press, 2002), pp. 209-210.

11. Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton was a professor of dogmatic theology at Catholic University of America. He was trained at the Angelicum in Rome, and wrote his doctoral thesis under the direction of the renowned Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. From 1944 to 1963, he was editor of the prestigious theological journal, the American Ecclesiastical Review. Among his many writings, Fenton especially defended Catholicism against the progressives' "new broader definition of the Church" then gaining adherents among many theologians. He also defended staunchly the traditional papal position regarding Church and State at a time when it was increasingly unpopular to do so.

12. "Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background of the Oath Against Modernism," Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The American Ecclesiastical Review, October, 1960, pp. 239-260.

14. A short article on Msgr. Fenton's prophetic observations entitled "1962 Warning, Vatican II Might Fail" is on the web at www.oltyn.com/cfn/jv-fail.htm

16. From original Latin Motu proprio Sacrorum Antistitum published in the Ecclesiastical Review, November, 1910, p. 366.

17. Quoted from "The Sacrocrum Antistitum and the Background to the Oath Against Modernism", Fenton, pp. 239-240.

23. To cite one example among many, the recent case of Father Zigrang in Texas, recounted later in this article.

31. For example, Father Donald Cozzens, author of the book The Changing Face of the Catholic Priesthood, belittled the Oath Against Modernism in a National Public Radio interview. More on this next month.

32. The full sentence reads: "They have full responsibility and full competence to see to it that the faithful of Christ receive His message in all of its purity and integrity." Sadly, most bishops as well as the highest members of the Church even at the Vatican are no longer competent to preserve the Catholic Faith in its purity and integrity since they themselves are now impregnated with Modernism, all the while thinking that they are genuinely Catholic. The entire post-Conciliar program of pan- religious ecumenism, aggiornamento is a product of the Modernism that Pope Saint Pius X condemned.

33. "The Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background to the Oath Against Modernism," Fenton, p. 257.

34. "Diocesan Pastor: I will never again celebrate the Novus Ordo," Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D., The Remnant, July 15, 2003; "Documents show bishops transferred known abuser," Dallas Morning News, August 31, 1997.

35. "The Sacrocrum Antistitum and the Background to the Oath Against Modernism", Fenton, p. 260.

36. See "Oath Agianst Modernism" in The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, p. 926.

37. Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, Bishop Rudolph Graber, (Palmdale: Christian Book Club, 1974), p. 54.

38. The "New Theology", condemned by Pope Pius XII, won the day at Vatican II. The theologians of the "New Theology" are Fathers Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, Joseph Ratzinger, Karl Rahner, etc. Pope John Paul II favors the very theologians of the New Theology that were suppressed under Pope Pius XII. In the case of Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar, John Paul made them Cardinals. More on this topic next month.

39. Le Catholicisme Liberal, 1969. Quoted in Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics. (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1992), p. 89.

40. Quoted from Iota Unum, Romano Amerio (Kansas City, Sarto House, 1996), p. 80.

42. On this Second Point, I have lifted word-for-word the comments of Romano Amerio from his brilliant book on the Council and its tragic aftermath, Iota Unum, pp. 80-81.

44. "The Sacrocrum Antistitum and the Background to the Oath Against Modernism", Fenton, p. 260.

45. Detailed in World Youth Day articles by John Vennari in Catholic Family News, especially February 2003, "World Youth Day: Showcase of Liturgical Abuse". (Reprint #791 available from CFN for $1.75US pp.)

46. Pius X explained that for Modernists, "to the laws of evolution everything is subject, dogma, worship ..., even Faith itself". This is why Cardinal Walter Kasper, appointed by Pope John Paul II to be the Prefect for the Vatican's Council for Christian Unity, will say, that the need for the conversion of non- Catholics to the one true Catholic Church is expressly abandoned at Vatican II'. This is nothing less than "evolution of dogma".

47. Next month, we will discuss Pope John Paul II's first major address on October 17, 1978, wherein he said it was his primary duty not to ensure the purity of the immutable Catholic doctrine, but "We consider it our primary duty to be that of promoting, with prudent and encouraging action, the most exact fulfillment of the norms and directives of the (Second Vatican) Council." (See Modern Catholicism, Edited by Adrian Hastings, New York: Oxford University Press, 1991, p. 447). Since then, Pope John Paul has inaugurated a steady stream of novelties such as pan-religious prayer-meetings at Assisi, Ecumenical "Common-Martyrs" ceremonies that contains members of non-Catholic religions, rock'n'roll World Youth Days, and countless other aberrations: all of which have been done in the name of the Council, and all of which would have been condemned under Pope Pius X and the preconciliar Popes.

Reprinted from the August 2003 edition of Catholic Family News MPO Box 743 * Niagara Falls, NY 14302 905-871-6292 * cfnjv@localnet.com

"One can only imagine what Pius X would say about those today who remain inactive while homosexual priests seduce children and rape teenage boys, and of those who do not discipline bishops who allow these perverse clergymen to defile -- and ruin for life -- the little ones of Christ's flock."

It's sad to see how much the mentality of the Popes has changed since Pius X. We can only pray that God will give us another Pius X soon. I excerpted the above quote from the article because I think it's equally sad that the children who were abused by the perverse clergy have themselves grown up and become attackers of the Church. While their emotion is understandable, and I'm thrilled to see these "priests" be brought to justice, suing the Church for millions and millions of dollars is a deplorable act, because only the poor will suffer from it.

I recall watching the story of Babe Ruth, starring William Bendix. Near the end of the movie, when the Babe was being poorly treated by the management of the Boston Braves, a rookie ball player tearfully said to him, "That can't treat you like this Babe, why not sue them"? To which the surprised Babe replied, wearing an incredulous expression, "Sue baseball?, why that would be like suing the Church". There was a time when such a thing was unspeakable.

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.