Modernism – A Catholic Refutation
Raymond Taouk
“By their fruits you shall know them” – Matt 7:14
Modernism is the most dangerous of all heresies because it destroys any basis for belief in a supernatural world, whereas previous heresies had restricted themselves to denying one or more teachings of the Catholic faith.
St. Pius X described Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” as it seeks to “lay the axe not to the branches and shoots (of the Catholic Church) but to the very root”, that is, to the faith and “its deepest fibbers, and once they have struck the axe “they (modernists) proceed to diffuse poison throughout the whole tree, so that there is no part of the Catholic truth which they leave untouched” (Pascendi). Modernism poses a threat to our faith, and hence to our hope of salvation.
It would not be false to call the Modernists the worst enemies of the Church for it is not from without but from within that they plot the destruction of the Church; by mingling in themselves rationalism and Catholicism, which is used to subtly seduce the ignorant in the name of “progress”.
Ever since the days of Pope Pius X, we have witnessed this struggle between two camps, that of Tradition, in which the deposit of the faith is preserved and handed over to future generations and that of the Modernists, which marches in the name of progress to destroy all that the Church holds to be sacred, while destroying not only the deposit of the faith but even its very foundations, that is the notion of faith itself.
This heresy of Modernism has not changed its nature and approach till the present day but has only become more bold and daring as it has now affected the whole Catholic Church to so large an extent that it has been embraced by almost the entire Catholic hierarchy; thus it is important that we learn to recognise it for what it really is.
The History of Modernism
The Church first took note of the heresy of Modernism and defined it on September 26, 1835 when condemning the approach of certain priests and professors in German universities, who were using the Modern Philosophy of Descartes, Kant and Hegel to reinterpret the Articles of Faith. It was said that “They are profaning their teaching office and are adulterating the sacred Deposit of Faith.”
Nevertheless in its early days Modernism began as and ideology which was taken up by a number of rationalists, spreading itself into the bosom of the Church at around the end of the 19th Century. It’s aim was a revolutionary transmutation of Catholic dogma through the application of historical criticism, by subtly influencing the ignorant to their cause by means of vague well sounding terms (i.e. “progress”, “Modern”, “New insight”, “liberty” etc.).
Although from the very outset of its introduction into the faith it was condemned by the Church in the Holy Office’s decree of Lamentabili, and various other condemnation which followed it, nevertheless it continue to flourish because of its vague and ambiguous nature.
It was during the pontificate of St. Pius X that a lay intellectual and politician, Antonio Fogazzaro, described the road to reform the Church and Papacy in his novel Il Santo. Speaking about the Modernist groups who continued their work despite the condemnations, Fogazzaro affirmed: “We are a good number of Catholics both inside and outside of Italy, ecclesiastics and laymen, who desire a reform in the Church. We want a reform without rebellion, carried out by the legitimate authority. We want reforms in religious instruction, reforms in the liturgy . . . and reforms also in the supreme government of the Church. In order to achieve that, we need to create a public opinion that will induce the authorities to act according to our opinions, even if this takes 20, 30, or 50 years.” – Antonio Fogazzaro, II santo (Milan, 1907), p. 38.
Many of the forerunners of Modernism were rationalists, who made their reason to be the ultimate standard by which they will or will not believe regardless of the facts presented. This itself stemmed from Protestantism which sought to liberate man from God and make him independent to such a degree that his salvation was self determined by simply believing in ones own justification or by making himself the arbiter of what the bible does or does not mean.
In the nineteenth century rationalist and liberal Protestant historians had also began to exert their influence in the hope of eliminating what was known as orthodox (traditional) Christianity.
Sometime in the 1930s, Progressivism came to light. This was but an artful name to designate a type of Modernism that was more prudent, subtler, and a more sophistic movement that dodged those strong condemnations of Modernism. It was more complete and encompassing in some aspects as it set forth a more extensive vision of man, the universe, and the Church.
Thus during the short span of twenty years (1890 – 1910) the Church suffered a convulsion, which she has never really emerged from. However to determine the precise origin of Modernism is not as such possible in such a minor study, yet nevertheless we may say for the sake of brevity that it was the fruits of a union between an erroneous philosophy and a rationalistic and Liberal theology.
In 1958 the election of John XXIII was the landmark for the reform of the Church and the Papacy so long desired by the modernists. Vatican II, which was announced on January 25, 1959, would take this reform much further.
The Modernist dream of changing the ecclesiastical institution and eventually obtaining a Pope favourable to a revolution in the Mystical Body of Christ accords with the previously announced aims of Freemasonry in relation to the Church (cf. The Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita (Rockford: TAN, 1999), pp. 6-10). This dream was to be realised in the pontificate of Pope John XXIII (“the transitional Pope”) and his immediate successors.
Some Well Known Modernists
Joseph Renan (1823 – 1892) was one such character. He had been a Catholic seminarian but came to doubt the truth of Christianity after studying the writings of the German critics. He did as much as anyone to destroy belief in Christ’s divinity with his book “the life of Christ”. He had a considerable influence upon Abbe Alfred Loisy a prominent leader among the Modernists.
Abbey Loisy was born in 1857 and died in 1940. His express ambition was to become a Father of the church; but he ended up as the Father of Modernism, one of the most dangerous adversaries the Church has ever seen.
Loisy formed the opinion that in order to retain her credibility in the approaching 20th Century, the Church must make a radical revision of her traditional teaching in order to accommodate this teaching to the findings of modern scholarship. What is interesting about loisy’s views as that like those of George Tyrrell (whom I shall shortly explain) they were to become the cornerstones from which modernism would emerge into the modern world and eventually into the Church . Loisy in his book “The Gospel and the Church” made a distinction between faith and history, and between the Christ of faith and the Christ of History. St. Pius X had no doubts about the implications of this Modernist thesis in which “we have a twofold Christ . . a Christ who has lived at a given time and place , and a Christ who has never lived outside the pious meditations of the believer” (Pascendi).
Finally in 1906 Loisy abandoned his priestly function and was formally excommunicated in 1908 after having five of his books placed on the index. He devoted the remained of his life (from 1909 -1930)to justifying Modernism.
Another among the names of influential Modernists is that of George Tyrrell who was born to a Protestant family in Ireland in 1861. He eventually moved to England and became a Catholic in 1879. After Joining the Jesuits he was ordained in 1891. He was led into Modernism under the influence of Baron von Hugel in 1897. Tyrrell spent much of his effort in writing works in defence and explanation of the modernist thesis although he often did this under pseudonyms to save himself from being condemned. Yet in 1906 he was expelled from the Society of Jesus and was excommunicated in the following year.
Before his death, Tyrell realised that the battle had been lost, yet he was still hopeful. In a letter dated 24 August 1908 he wrote to a friend of his “thanks to a silent and secret preparation we shall have won a much greater proportion of the army of the Church to the cause of liberty”. Today it seems these were have indeed come true!
With such persons working for the destruction of the Church by means of a positive revolution which wound set into effect the promotion and eventual expectation of the modernist doctrine, it is not hard to see why another well Known Modernist such as Maurice Blondel could write (in 1903) already at the beginning of the 20th Century ” With every day that passes, the conflict between tendencies which set Catholic against Catholic in ever order -Social, political, philosophical – is revealed as sharper and more general. One could almost say that there are now two quite incompatible “Catholic mentalities”.
Thus by the end of the 20th Century Modernism will have succeeded in claiming a great victory with the (at least implicit) approval of its doctrine at the Second Vatican Council at already by this time (1960’s) a great number of the Catholic hierarchy had been well imbued with the Modernist spirit and mindset which would help set into effect the almost unstoppable chain reaction of deception that we now see among the Catholic hierarchy who no longer espouse the principles of Catholic doctrine but rather the principles of the French revolution “Liberty, equality, and fraternity” which is especially made evident in the Declarations Dignitatis Humanae, Lumen Gentium , Gaudium et Spes and Religious Liberty of the Second Vatican Council.
Such persons were followed by well know Catholic figures such as Henri de Lubac, Telhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner who lead the devastation of Modernism into the theological field which has devastated the Catholic faith ever since.
Pope Pius X reduces the cause of Modernism to Pride, Curiosity and Ignorance for “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 of their ignorance” -8th, Sept. 1907
This is, in brief, the philosophical & theological background of Modernism. Agnosticism represents its negative aspect, while its positive aspect is the principle of vital immanence. The errors of Modernism thus stem from their erroneous principles as St. Thomas well put it “A small error in principles leads to a grave error in ones conclusion”.
“Let no one lead you astray with empty words; for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience. Do not, then, become partakers with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are the light in the lord. Walk, then, as children of light, testing what is well pleasing to God; and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them”. – Ephesians 5:6-11
The Principles of Modernism
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 it has no power to overstep these limits. Hence for the Modernist the intellect is incapable of recognising Gods existence.
The core of the Modernist Principles is found in a triple thesis; the denial of the supernatural as an object of certain knowledge; an exclusive immanence of the Divine and of revelation reducing the Church to a simple, social, civilising, phenomenon; and a total emancipation of scientific research from Church dogma which would allow the continued assertion of faith in dogma, with its contradiction on the historical level.
Modernism and Pantheism
Modernism holds to some views that subscribe to the pantheistic notion of God. That is just as pantheism identifies God with the universe (material creation). This is like the immanent God of the Modernists who has no existence independent of the material universe, as St. Pius X affirms in his Encyclical Pascendi (8 Sept. 1907) ” 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”.
St. Pius X further warned, “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”.
Modernists and Ambiguity
Modernists have a great distaste for clarity and so they often make use of orthodox Catholic terminology to distort the truth of things and to bolster their cause of deception in which it seems at times they have even deceived the greatest of intellectuals and the most devout of Catholics. It would thus be wrong to imagine that everything in the writing of the Modernists was unorthodox. Much of what they often write often sounds perfectly sound, with much ambiguity. A statement like “Our faith is based upon the Resurrection of Jesus Christ” could mean His physical (Historical) Resurrection as the Church teaches, or simply a symbolic story which was invented by the first Christians to promote faith in Christ who rose only in the mind of his believers. For this reason Pope Pius X warned ” 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 rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise the people, they cite them respectfully” – Pascendi
Although I have previously asserted that this Heresy of Modernism has gained a footing in the Catholic Church, I do not affirm on this account that they (the Modernist hierarchy) have made a clear list of propositions that they have explicitly affirmed. Modernism does not operate in this way; it’s technique is infiltration “without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner” wrote Pope Pius X (Pascendi).
On this same score Fr. Amerio Romano in his book “Iota Unum”, points out the various changes in the language used by the Modernist (Neo-Modernist) theologians since the second Vatican Council which had opened the door to the modernist revolution in the Church.
A modernist will often recite the articles of the Creed using the same words as the Church prescribes but interprets them with his own lights or according to the current progressive understanding thus giving a new meaning the ancient terms.
Modernism – Dogma, Faith, Revelation & God
Modernists hold Catholic dogma (teaching) to be nothing but a common consciousness of the believers or as their “collective conscience”. Thus prompted by this “common consciousness” the believers came together in a society to formulate and systematise its beliefs. This according to Modernism this is how the Magisterium of the Church originated. Its function is to interpret and formulate whatever is found by the collective conscience to be helpful to the life of the Church at any given period. Thus the faith and the Magisterium originated in the people. Their collective conscience is the ultimate authority for what Christians should believe. Thus the Magisterium is made subservient to the people and is made to bow down to the popular ideas of the day. Thus for the Modernist God is not transcendent; He is not “out there” but “totally within”. As St. Pius X explained in Pascendi, the Modernist God was no more than a symbol and that “the personality of God will become a matter of doubt and the gate will be opened to pantheism”.
The modernist philosophers who challenge all rational proof of the existence of God as the First Cause of everything in existence, both material and spiritual fall victims to a scientific atheism. For these, God is something emanating from man’s subconscious. This false “faith” of theirs, based as it is on mere sentiment or feelings, is expressed in ever-changing formulae, since these have no other objective than that of maintaining or of warming up over and over again a sentimental life, a life of the heart which is, by definition, irrational. For these people, religion is a form of life and, as such, cannot constitute an adherence to an exterior object. Their “faith” proceeds from man; known as religious immanence, vital immanence. Such a system of “belief” cannot possibly be viewed as an unmistakably clear knowledge above all scientific knowledge; on the contrary, science (which modernists have reduced to the level of measurable things, to impose its control on all human judgement) affirms the objectivity of reality.
The Modernists regard revelation as a purely natural emergence of religious knowledge from a natural sense known as the “religious sense”. Thus it affirms the erroneous principle of naturalism. For this reason do Modernists place the Catholic faith on the same footing as other religions as all organised religions are valid expressions (more or less perfect) of the same emerging consciousness. Thus for the Modernist the Catholic Church is not the one authentic mediator of revealed truth.
As St. Pius X says “The Sacred Books may be described (by the Modernists) 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 thus no place is left for Christ or His Church for grace or for anything that is above and beyond nature.
The modernist sees the objective content of the faith to which Catholics have always held to as mere mythology with the distinction between nature and grace being a mere scholastic invention, like the term transubstantiation. Thus in such a system doctrine has no permanent value in a changing world where people will express their experience of faith in different ways.
Modernism and Evolution
St. Pius X stated that the principle doctrine of the Modernists was that of evolution “to the laws of evolution everything is subject under penalty of death – dogma, Church worship, the books we revere as sacred, even the faithitself” (Pascendi). The modernist maintain that there is ever in the Church a constant struggle between the conservative and the progressive elements which serve to bring about the a new synthesis from which comes a new dogma. Hence writes St. Pius X “those who study more closely the ideas of Modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation”.
Christianity taken as a whole to the modernists is merely the culmination of the evolutionary process as it could be observed at work in religion.
It might be said that By means of these false and groundless principles, Dogma, the Sacraments, the Holy Scriptures, the Church and ecclesiastical authority can be done away with.
Modernism and Miracles
Since the Catholic Church has a well documented history of Miracles and other unexplainable occurrences that have served to confirm its divine origin the modernists confronted with this will seek to explain it away by denying the historical, physical and objective facts of reality which they reject by mere prejudice. This is because modernists are agnostic and maintain that what ever goes beyond the capacities of human reason or experience is not knowable. And so they reduce miracles to mere expressions of interior feelings that serve to intensify the internal feelings of the claimant. This reduces miracles to a mere subjective belief (feeling or idea) of an individual.
Renan States “It is evident that the Gospels are in part, legendary because they are interlarded with miracles and the supernatural.” – The life of Jesus
Any historical evidence in defence of miracles is automatically judged as useless (before examination!) because it testifies to the supernatural. With this same prejudice they affirm miracles to be impossible without giving any such proof.
Further Modernist seek to down play the historical value of any miracle discrediting them often as “exaggeration” “Legends” “old stories” “fables” “vermont expressions of desire” etc.
A Catholic Refutation of the Modernist Principles
For more than a century the Church has firmly and consistently fought against the erroneous philosophical principles of Modernism which now pervades the theological thought of the post conciliar Church to a greater extent.
There can be no doubt that religious indifferentism is the spirit which now pervades the ecumenical movement of the post-conciliar Church which was long ago condemned by Pope Pius XI in Encyclical Mortalium Animos and by the Syllabus of Errors (Dz 2918).
Cardinal Newman writing against the Liberals of his day put it well say” What is the worlds religion now? . . . it includes no true fear of God, no fervent zeal for His honour, no deep hatred of sin, no horror at the sight of sinners, no indignation and compassion at the blasphemies of heretics, no jealous adherence to doctrinal truth . . . and therefore is neither hot nor cold but lukewarm (Newman Against the Liberals, pp. 110)
True Development of Catholic dogma
While for the Modernist revelation is a continuing process destined to go on until the end of time with earlier statements of the faith being modified or even contradicted if it is more suited to the spirit of the age. The Catholic notion is quite the contrary. The Churches teaching is that public revelation was given once and for all (completed with the death of the last apostle) to be more and more fully understood as time goes on, but to be passed on in its entirety, undiminished and uncorrupted. For the
Modernist, dogmas have no absolute truth and are valid for the time in which they are made, but not necessarily at other periods.
In contrast to this false notion of Catholic teaching the First Latern Council declared that ” If anyone does not profess, in accordance with the Holy Fathers, properly and truthfully all that has been handed down and taught publicly to the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of God, both by the same Holy Fathers and by approved universal Councils, to the last detail and intention: let him be anathema!”
Our Lord, warns us at the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ – “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly are ravening wolves.” (Matt. 7:15) These words echo across the centuries to us Catholics at the present day, who are just as much, and even more, in need of such a warning. What should motivate us to heed this warning most carefully in our daily lives? Because the purity and integrity of the Faith is a serious matter.
Certainly we don’t expect to find men dressed in sheepskin. No. What we are told to “beware” of is that which on the surface sounds pleasing to the ear; that which seems “positive” or “beneficial” at first glance. But behind it all is a subtle error that destroys Faith. What is one of the best ways that an error against the Faith can be taught to a Catholic and have him easily accept it as true even if at first they question the novelty of it. The way it was done at the turn of the century was to say that “doctrine evolves”, or that “truth evolves with man”. Today however, being that evolution is not generally looked upon favourably by Catholics, they will instead say that you must realise that there is “doctrinal development” – this is the “sheep’s clothing” of which Our Lord speaks. What better way to have false doctrines accepted by the faithful than to claim that the doctrine only “seems different” because they are the truths of old which have “developed” and progressed, or advanced! This is one of the most insidious and treacherous methods of corrupting the faith of a Catholic. The word “development” sounds beneficial or very “theological” to the ear, and may very well catch people off-guard.
The First Vatican Council condemned the Modernists notion of Doctrinal development in the following words: “If anyone says: it may happen that to doctrines put forward by the Church, sometimes, as knowledge advances, a meaning should be given different from what the Church has understood and understands, let him be anathema.”
The term “doctrinal development” is a very general term that has more than one meaning. It must be properly understood.
When for example an oak tree grows, it matures and develops as anything in nature. The oak tree has in perfection what the acorn had in germ. The acorn does not later become an apple tree. When it comes to the supernatural truths of Divine Revelation we see that this is true. The Church cannot at one time condemn something as a sin or error and latter teach that it is true or a virtue. Let us look at a young boy who lived generations ago. At age 10 the boy learns his catechism, receives the sacraments and professes his Faith. He is a Catholic pure and simple, and knows the truths of his faith. As he matures, so does his faith and understanding of the truths, which he always knows are true. Later in life he studies philosophy and theology and becomes a theologian. He is still just as much of a Catholic as he was when he was 10 but now instead of simply excepting things to be true, he now knows the reason for these truths. He has attained a BETTER understanding as he grew. This is nothing less than a “development of doctrine” in its TRUE SENSE. At age 10 he was Catholic with a GOOD understanding of the Truths of the Faith. As an elderly theologian he believes and professes the very SAME doctrines with the SAME MEANINGS but with a BETTER understanding.
The Church was given the Truths of the Faith from Our Lord. This “Deposit of Faith” has been preserved and taught infallibly from the beginning. When the Church was young, Christians had a GOOD understanding of the Faith. As the Church grew we developed a BETTER understanding of what was contained in that sacred deposit.
The First Vatican Council affirms the same thing, namely that “The doctrine of the Faith revealed by God has not been proposed to men as a philosophical invention to be perfected, but entrusted to the bride of Christ as a divine deposit, for her to guard faithfully and to infallibly teach. Further it is necessary to guard the sacred dogmas in the sense that the Church has once and for all time exposed, and it is never permitted, under the pretext of a more profound understanding, to distance oneself from them. It is thus important that intelligence, knowledge and wisdom grow and progress vigorously, in each as in all, for each individual man as for the Church as a whole, in the course of ages and centuries; but only in its kind, that is to say, in the same dogma, the same sense, and the same thought” – Dz 3020
A Catholic in the 1st Century is just as much a Catholic as an orthodox theologian of the 20th century, believing the same doctrines. Truth is immutable. A true development of doctrine “increases” the understanding of the fine points and its relation to other truths. Never can a BETTER understanding means that what was previously understood was defective. It was understood in less detail, but was NOT an error, or anything to the contrary. A theologian believes the same truths as the school-boy, only he knows them in better detail. This fuller detail cannot be contrary to what the school-boy knows. So, we see Our Lord warns us of men who would seek to corrupt our Faith.
The Church has had to deal with such heretics in the past, and has dealt with them severely. Heretics who hold high office in the Church can easily fool the average Catholic simply by standing on his office of dignity. Bishop Arius is a good example of this as by his heresy (the Arian heresy) he caused about 80% of the clergy in the east to fall away from the Faith. And many went along, not because they understood the heresy, but because they followed their clergy into it.
St. Paul gives us a principle to remember: “brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” (2 Thess. 2:14) Immutable truth is found in tradition.
So we are able to see not only how prevalent error is today, but also how easily one can fall into error and cease to be Catholic, which shows us how serious adherence to tradition and the true meaning of Doctrinal development really is.
A Refutation of the Modernist Notion of Revelation
Contrary to the modernist notion or revelation the Church has constantly insisted on the external character of divine revelation.
The whole concept of an interior emergence of revealed truth is clearly condemned by the Oath against Modernism which states: “I hold with certainty and I sincerely confess that faith is NOT a blind impulse of religion welling up from the depth of the subconscious . . . but a genuine assent of the intellect to truth which is received from outside, by hearing”.
In fact, faith, which is the beginning of salvation, was defined by the First Vatican Council (Session 3, Chapter 3) as being a supernatural virtue that operates in the order of knowledge, because, by it, we adhere to the Truth revealed by God, moved by the authority of God, and not by evidence. The Council further declared that as Faith is a rational gift, together with internal Grace, God provided external signs, accommodated to human intelligence, in order that men would know really that God revealed such and such Truths. Finally, it condemned those who affirm that Faith is a blind adherence, or based only on our internal experience.
Therefore, no conversion or adherence to the Church is made without an intellectual knowledge that accepts a Truth.
Further if it were merely some interior sense how is it that not all men acknowledge this sense? For there are indeed a number of men who assert themselves to be atheists, yet accordingly if the modernist system were true there would be no atheists as it would not be possible to deny that which is evidently from within!
The Modernist argument that God can not be known by reasons is refuted by Pope St. Pius X who affirms that “To say a thing cannot be known does not authorise us to deny it.” Indeed this is simply a clear fault in logical reasoning.
St. Paul affirms that those who deny the intellect the ability to know God’s existence are inexcusable (Romans 1:20).
Further in response to this the Church declares with the First Vatican Council that “If anyone says that the One True God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be known by means of things created, let him be anathema.”
The Modernists view of Sacred scripture is best summaries in the words of Fr. George Tyrrell who wrote that “The Evangelists, full of His (Christ’s) Spirit and mind, might conceivably have been inspired to reveal Him to us, not in a strictly historical narrative, but in such fact founded fictions as would best characterise and portray His personality to those who knew it not”. – Lex Orandi, Chapter 23
The modernists thus conceive the scriptures not as historical Facts, but mere fictitious stories told to conduce people to believe based on the testimony they give without logically (and openly) asserting that the sacred writers to be liars and deceivers.
The modernist in the Church today rejoice at this since it is precisely in the field of exegesis (scriptural interpretation) that they have succeeded in wreaking havoc and destroying any real biblical scholarship by their erroneous and heretical interpretations to the sacred text.
However such a reckoning has been condemned constantly by the Church as Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus (1893) clearly affirmed that “It is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the Sacred writer has erred”.
The writings of the Fathers must be used as a basis for the interpretation of sacred scripture and to reject such a teaching would be to come under the papal condemnations of the Holy Council of Trent (Session IV) and both Popes Leo XIII (Providentissimus Deus) and Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante spiritu, Sep. 30 , 1943
Pope St. Pius X condemned in his Syllabus of Errors, (July 3, 1907) the false notion that modernists attach to the scriptures, their interpretation and purpose. The following are just a few:
“The Church’s interpretation of the Scriptures is to be subject to the corrections of exegetes” (Proposition No. 2) or that “the evangelists wrote what they thought was more profitable for their readers, and not necessarily the truth” (Proposition No. 14) or that “revelation could have been the consciousness acquired by man in his relationship with God” (Proposition No. 21).
“That the Divinity of Christ is not proven by the Gospels but comes from Christian communities looking back on the life of Jesus” (proposition 27)
“That the Christ of history is inferior to the Christ of faith” (Proposition 29).
“that the Knowledge of Jesus in the Gospel is not the same as the Church teaches us” (Proposition 32).
It is of interest to note that four months after Pope St. Pius X published this syllabus he prescribed the penalty of excommunication for all those who held or defended the positions condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.
If Modernists hold to such audacious views of the Gospels, it may be justly asked who is the Christ of Modernism? He is simply Anti-Christ, the clever creation of Satan making a supreme effort to revoke mankind of its belief in the divine incarnation of the Son of God (cf. 1 John 2). I will conclude on this point with the words of Pope St. Stephen I as they seem most apt to refute modernist false notion of revelation, that is “Let them innovate in nothing, but keep the traditions”!
A Refutation on the Modernist Notion of the Magisterium.
Since modernists are not concerned with true knowledge but rather with feelings [sentiments] and immanence – [i.e., the teaching that the foundation of faith must be sought in an internal sense which arises from man’s need of God], and since they no longer have any external object to adhere to, the modern theologians have simply become begetters of symbols, designed to represent the divine emanating from human subconscious. They also consider that the Magisterium’s sole function is that of transmitting or passing on common opinions. Their cult thus ends up being a humanistic expression of religious feelings. The modernist Church, for its part, is now seen as the collective conscience in the same way that popular regimes constitute the public conscience: and only the democratic form is considered suitable to their ends. Thus we end up with the error of separation of the Church and the State. In fact, since modernists hold faith to be subject to human knowledge [science] and reason, to the total advantage of [human] reasoning and to the vanishing point of faith, the Church is seen to be subject to the collective conscience which constitutes what may be essentially called an all-encompassing Christian democracy, that is to say, the State. Understood in this way, authority becomes nothing more than a service whose mission is limited to the taking of the “universal pulse” in order to explain it in a formula comprehensible to everyone.
However the Catholic teaching on the Magisterium and its teaching authority is clear.Namely that although the Pope is limited by the deposit of the faith, (Dz 3070) it is he who is the lawful expounder of Catholic doctrine and not every private individual (Dz 3055). This fact is well affirmed by all the fathers and doctors of the Church without question. It was finally defined by the First Vatican Council. St. Thomas Aquinas makes it clear that “neither Jerome nor Augustine nor any other of the sacred doctors upheld his own opinion” (Secunda Secundae Q.XI, Art. II.) unlike today’s Modernists self appointed “popes”.
Pope St. Pius X condemned the Modernist notion of the Magisterium in Lamenentabili sane in proposition No. 6 which declares the following as condemned “The learning Church (ecclesia dicens) and the Teaching Church (ecclesia docencs) collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it only remains for the teaching Church to sanction the opinions of the learning Church.
It is well to note that if a Catholic wants to remain a Catholic, he cannot attribute error to the Church’s infallible teaching. What the Modernist does on the other hand is that he simply keeps the label (the same words with minor distortion for a while atleast) while substituting the content . Yet such a deceptive notion of the faith and the role of the Magisterium was clearly condemned by the First Vatican Council when it declared that “If anyone shall say that, because of scientific progress, it may be possible at some time to interpret the Church’s dogmas in a different sense from that which the Church understood and understands, let him be anathema” (Dz. 1800).
The same Council also teaches that Papal definitions are irreformable “of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church”.
Further for many years, in the wake of the first wave of modernism, priests and Catholic professors had to affirm on Oath “I sincerely receive the doctrine of faith which the orthodox Fathers have transmitted to us from the Apostles, always in the same sense and meaning. And therefore I reject absolutely the false and heretical view of the evolution of dogmas, according to which they may change meaning so as to receive a different sense.”
Contrary to what might be decided by today’s Episcopal meetings (which are done in the name of collegiality) the faith must remain intact and any attempts to render it obsolete contradicts the vary purpose of the power given to them which can only work for the edification of the Church and not for the destruction thereof (2 Cor 13:10).
A prominent tool used by the Modernists since the Second Vatican Council has been the false innovation of collegiality which itself was so bitterly debated at the Council as Fr. Ralph Wiltgen points out in his book “The Rhine flows into the Tiber”. By means of Collegiality the Modernist element within the hierarchy have worked to give greater power to the bishops in order to muffle the voice of the Pope along with that of other bishops who might want to take a different course of action. The First Vatican Council condemned this collegial orientation in Church (Dz 3055).
Yet in may be useful to see what the thoughts of St. Gregory Nazianzen (382 AD) was regarding this false notion of collegiality which has been so readily taken up by the post conciliar hierarchy, he thus writes” If I must speak the truth, I fell disposed to shun every conference of bishops; for never did I see a synod brought to a happy issue, and remedying, and not rather aggravating, existing evils”
A Refutation on Principle of Ambiguity
” I hate arrogance and pride, and every wicked way, and a mouth with a double tongue.” – Proverbs 8:13
Modernists have a great hatred for clarity as it confines them to confess exactly what they mean in a way that they will be understood by all but for them this would be disastrous as they know to well that the simple and faithful Catholics would reject them as absurd and rash men without a faith or an integrity worth upholding.
Cardinal Newman stressed well in his day the importance of the use of clear terminology saying “I must not be supposed to be forgetful of the sacred and imperative duty of preserving with religious exactness all those theological terms which are ecclesiastically recognized as portions of dogmatic statements, such as Trinity, Person, Consubstantial, Nature, Transubstantiation, Sacrament . . . such sensitiveness is the only human means by which the treasure of faith can be Kept inviolate” – On Consulting the Faithful
Modernists avoid well using such terms as mentioned above, or when they do use them it is done in such a vague context as to render the meaning two fold as a subtle means of undermining the faith without explicitly appearing to do so. Yet with the same breath we might add that today the Modernists have become more bold and often coming out with clearly heretical and erroneous statements since today there is little or nothing to stop them, since their views are almost unanimously held by those who ought to safeguard the deposit of faith. Indeed we may say with St. Thomas More, that “the forte has been brayed by those who ought to have defended it”.
This mark of ambiguity of the Modernists is clearly evident in the writings of the post conciliar Popes and that of numerous like minded theologians who’s works for the greater part are vague and even difficult to interpret and understand.
This why the media often makes use of the current Popes works to favour the false maxims of the world since the Pope himself gives them this liberty by the vagueness in his writings. Unlike the previous popes of the past who were despised for their clear wording and affirmation of Catholic teaching as they wrote with clearness and simplicity and all thoroughly understood what they were writing about, and above all they had a firm conviction of the faith, unlike the post conciliar Popes who seem to cast a negative out look on the Churches past and ask for a forgiveness from Her enemies who seek to violate Her and Her laws.
We may affirm with the scriptures that such ambiguity has helped to bring on the confusion which now reigns in the Church – “the double tongue is accursed: for he hath troubled many that were at peace.” Ecclesiasticus 28:15
In order to instill in our minds the great destruction that has resulted by the ambiguous terminology used by the Modernists since Second Vatican Council we simply need parallel it will a great event in History, namely the Arian crisis of the fourth Century where the Council of Nicea (325) defined that the Son is consubstantial (homoousion) with the Father. This meant that, while distinct as a person, the Son shared the same divine and eternal nature with the Father. The term homoousion thus became the touchstone of orthodoxy. No other word could be found to express the essential union between the Father and the Son, for every other word the Arians accepted, but in an equivocal sense. They would deny that the Son was a creature as other creatures – or in the number of creatures – or made in time, for they considered him a special creation made before time. They would call Him “Only-begotten,” meaning “Only directly created” Son of God etc., However this word (homoousion) alone they could not say without renouncing their heresy (cf. M. L. Cozens, A Handbook of Heresies (London, 1960) p. 34).
Many bishops and the faithful complained that too much fuss was being made about the distinction between homoousion and homoiousion. They considered that more harm than good was done by tearing apart the unity of the Church over a single letter, over an iota (the Greek letter “i”). They condemned those who did this. Yet St. Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria refused to modify in any way his attitude and remained steadfast in refusing to accept any statement not containing the homoousion or to communicate with those who rejected it. The fact is (as history has confirmed) that St. Athanasius and his supporters were right. That one letter, that iota, spelled the difference between Christianity as the faith founded and guided by God incarnate, and a faith founded by just another creature. Indeed, if Christ is not God, it would be blasphemous to call ourselves Christians.
A great number of Catholics died at the hands of the blood thirsty Arains simply because they refused to accept one iota of change in the same word! What might we thus say of the volumes of ambiguity which were approved in the name of the Second Vatican Council?
Our Lord Jesus Christ teaches us to avoid ambiguity when he affirms “Let your yes bet yes and your no be no”. It may be affirmed that regardless of the modernist ambiguity (according to Canon 1325) such persons must be held as heretics (if not formal at least material) if they perniciously reject or doubt any of those truths, which must be held with a divine and Catholic faith. Modernists simply use this vague terminology in order to reconstruct theology to suit their own views.
The Baltimore Catechism states that: “A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.”
This merely repeats the teaching of Our Lord as written by St. James: “whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.” (St. James 2:10)
St. Thomas Aquinas concurs: “To reject but one article of faith taught by the Church is enough to destroy faith as one mortal sin is enough to destroy charity…”
Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical “Satis Cognitum”, teaches this in so many words: “Nothing is more dangerous than the heretics who, while conserving almost all the remainder of the Church’s teaching intact, corrupt with a single word, like a drop of poison, the purity and the simplicity of the faith which we have received through tradition from God and through the Apostles.”
Thus a person’s Faith can be easily corrupted by this false and ambiguous language of the modernist as so we should find motivation in the fact that this the danger is more prevalent today than it was at the turn of the century.
A Refutation of the Principle of Evolution
Maurice Blondel (1861-1949), the well known modernist, (who is mentioned above) is often seen as one of the Fathers of Modernism (cf. “They Think They’ve Won!” SiSiNoNo, No.4). He taught a new definition of truth which is directly contrary to the Church’s perennial definition (in order to bolster the modernist evolutionary principle in which all is subject to change). He said truth is not the agreement of our intellect and objective reality. Let me give an example of why this is wrong and why truth is the conformity of our intellect with reality. If I hold a bird and tell you this is a bird, you will test the truth of my statement by comparing what I have said, what is supposed to be in my mind, and the objective reality. If these correspond, then my word is true and you must submit your intelligence to the reality of the bird. If these do not correspond, then my word is false. But modern thinkers say truth is the agreement between our intellect and life. Now, how do we recognize life? The first question we ask when we find someone lying in the road is, “Is he alive?” To see if he is, you will see if there is movement of his eyes, if his heart is beating, etc. Life means movement. If you say that truth is the conformity of our intellect with life, that is, of our intellect and movement, then truth must move! If truth must move, then we must keep changing it. If it stands still, then it’s not truth. So, we have been ordered to change to show that the Church has life!
Thus we can now understand why someone like Pope John Paul II would define Tradition as “That which can Change!”
Yet Pope St. Pius X in virtue of his Apostolic Authority, condemned the modernist thesis which holds that “Christ did not teach a fixed body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men; he rather inaugurated a certain religious movement which adapts itself, or should adapt itself, to different times and places” – The decree Lamentabili
likewise in his proposition of Errorshe condemns the notion that “the organic constitution of the Church is not unchangeable, like human society, the Christian society is subject to perpetual evolution” – Error 53 (Lamentabili Sane)
And again he condemns as false the notion that “Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him and through him” – Error 58 (cf. Error 62).
The same modernist philosophers also deny that our intelligence can understand the essence of things (the deepest part of things) which can’t change. You may have a boy who will change in height, weight, and age, but his essence as man will always be the same. He will always be a man, always possess a human nature, and this will not change. The modern philosophers say you can’t go that deep and that you are obliged to stay at the level of changing. This limits discussion to only the changing part of things and our personal opinions about them, which are no more or less important than anyone else’s opinions. This is a world of total subjectivism, of opinions, which is clearly evident at the level of religions. All religions are equally good! But the essence of God is His existence. There is still only one God and this one God has to be worshipped as He commands. There can be no change here! But the modernists say we can no longer say that Our Lord has to reign on this earth; there are Buddhists, Muslims, this and that, and it is impossible to require them to worship a Jesus they don’t know. But, don’t try to convert them because their opinion is as good or bad as yours!
For this reason do we see the post conciliar hierarchy embracing the false notion of religious liberty as presented in the texts of Vatican II which has nevertheless been condemned by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura and by Pope Leo XIII in Libertas Praestantissimum.
Yet regardless of what is asserted the fact remains that truth doesn’t change.
Refutation of Modernists Notion of Miracles
The Miracles for which the Catholic Church often claims authentication are beyond doubt true and authentic since a great number of them have even been subjected to scientific examination and have showed themselves to be beyond the explanation or powers of nature.
Although we acknowledge the existence of both the physical laws and metaphysical laws we must say that both are deduced from the free will of God and not from the necessary being of God. Although metaphysical and mathematical laws are always absolutely necessary and are not subject to exception by miracles. However physical laws have only a contingent necessity as they depend on God’s free will. For example, there is nothing in the nature of things (themselves) and in the concept of matter which requires bodies to attract to one another but there is something in the nature of a square and that of a circle which makes it impossible even to God’s Omnipotence to create a “square circle”. In the latter case there is an antecedent impossibility which is founded on the eternal Truth, while in the case of all physical laws, their necessity is subsequent to and arising from the decree of the God’s free Will.
Miracles are interruptions of nature’s effects and not violations of its laws. St. Thomas states that “Although God may produce an effect outside the working of its natural cause, He in no way abolishes the regular relation of this to effect”.
Rather than violate the laws of nature miracles only serve as a confirmation to them, as according to the axiom “the exception confirms the rule”, sine if there were no rule (laws of Nature) there could be no exception!
Thus we may say that the miracles of Scripture are irregularities in the economy of nature, but with a moral end, and although they are exceptions to the laws of one system (laws of nature), they coincide with those of another.
In response to the modernist rejection of Miracles we may ask with St. Paul “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?” – Acts 26:8
Anyone who reads the Gospels without prejudice sees in every page of them that miracles were one of the most effective means employed by Christ to prove to His hearers that He was their Messiah performing His divine works and giving the “signs” that Isaias had foretold, – “If I do not the works of My Father, believe me Not. But if I do them and ye will not believe Me, believe the works themselves that ye may and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father” – John 10:26 (See also Matt 11, John 25:24). Now if Christ really performed those works (miracles) of healing, if He did actually raise the daughter of Jairus, and Lasarus, and the son of the widow of Naim from the dead, then the objections of the Modernists fall to the ground. But if He did not raise them from the dead, then since He claimed to do these deeds as proofs of His divinity, He was in truth the blasphemous impostor that the chief priests said He was. Anyone who, though really only human, induces men to worship him as God is both a conscienceless liar and a promoter of idolatry.
In considering the credibility of Christ’s miracles, we should also not forget that they were often wrought in the presence of hostile and skeptical observers. The whole ninth chapter of St. John’s Gospel is an illustration of this fact.
Miracles cannot be regarded as something accidental that is they cannot be regarded as something that can be omitted without doing essential damage to revelation. They not only authenticate the message, but are part of that message.
The same modernist have sort to eliminate miracles from the Gospel, have ended up by denying the Godhead of Christ, giving to His perfect Humanity a personality of its own and denying to Him anything more than a metaphorical “divinity” one shared with all men, the same in kind though less in degree. “Christ is divine, but so are we all, at least potentially” is the message of the Modernists.
To deny God the power to perform a physical miracle is to deny Him Omnipotence.If the Creator of life is cannot for a wise and loving moral purpose restore life to the dead, He would not be God.
Just as the Protestants deny the deny the efficacy of good works so to the modernists deny the efficacy of Miracles. Yet Pope Pius IX in his well known Syllabus of Errors (Dec. 8, 1864) condemned this : – Error No. 7 ” the prophecies and miracles described and related in sacred Scripture are the invention of poets . . . and in the books of both Testaments are contained mythical inventions”
Truly Modernists are like those in St. Paul’s warning to Timothy “Having an appearance of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid” – 2 Tim 3:5
The Christ of Modernism (stripped of His Godhead and His divine power of miracles) can never have been the “God -Man” Victim who was needed to make full atonement to God for the sins of Mankind.
Conclusion:
The logic of Modernism is that man has no God outside himself and hence if accepted would certainly result in the destruction of all religion and ultimately in the destruction of all civilization itself. This is precisely what we are seeing in contemporary society, above all in man’s arrogation to himself of the divine prerogatives of life and death (i.e. Contraception, abortion, suicide, murder etc.).
The few courageous Priests and bishops who have zealously fought against this heresy have no doubt received a great amount of persecution from there fellow priests and bishops who have themselves accepted whole heartily these false principles which work for the destruction of the Church and true civil order. St. Pius X saw this in his day and noted that” 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 .. . they seek to make a conspiracy of silence around him (who speaks against them) to nullify the effects of his attack”.
We have clearly seen these methods (and many others which St. Pius X mentions) used against such well known and staunch defenders of the Faith such as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre , founder of the Society of St. Pius X in 1970. As Mgr. Rudolf Graber (Bishop of Regensburg, Germany) put it “What happened over 1600 years ago is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria is the whole Universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was under taken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into the silence of being ignored; killing, by assassination of character.” – Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, p. 23.
Pope St. Pius X in his day warned us against the modernist infiltration into the Church saying that: “we should act without delay in this matter [to condemn Modernism] 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,? We allude…to many who belong…to 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 ….Enemies of the Church they certainly are, 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”. – Pascendi
The same Pope warns us that “the gravity of the evil [of Modernism] is daily growing and must be checked at any cost. We are no longer dealing, as at the beginning, with opponents “in sheep’s clothing,” but with open and bare-faced enemies in our very household, who, having made a pact with the chief foes of the Church are bent on overthrowing the Faith. These are men whose haughtiness in the face of heavenly wisdom is daily renewed, claiming the right to correct it as if it were corrupted. They want to renovate it as if it were consumed by old age, increase it and adapt it to worldly tastes, progress and comforts, as if it were opposed not just to the frivolity of a few, but to the good of society.There will never be enough vigilance and firmness on the part of those entrusted with the faithful safe-keeping of the sacred deposit of evangelical doctrine and ecclesiastical tradition, in order to oppose these onslaughts against it. –Pope St. Pius X, Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, 1910
That was in the early 1900’s. Today those Churchmen, deformed by Neo-Modernism in the seminaries and religious institutions and by the false ideas of the last Council, are in power in the Church and occupy the key positions in the Catholic hierarchy, putting to work their “counsels of destruction” to unify the human race “in a common ruin.” – St.Pius X
Despite Modernism’s remarkable expansion and conquest of important and eminent positions in the Catholic Church, a great number of the Catholic clergy and laymen persevere in believing, that it is the duty of all Catholics to continue to follow St. Pius X’s advance to combat this insidious heresy. Many Catholics today have to be extra vigilant because these heretics are not being condemned, and can be found in many parishes. Some of these vigilant Catholics call themselves “traditional Catholics” to distinguish themselves from those who are not standing fast to the traditions.
All Catholics have a duty to help root out the Modernist ambition to revolutionise the Church and destroy to the true harmony that God had ordained for civil society for as Pope Felix III affirmed “To not resist error is to approve it, to not defend truth is to suffocate it . . . Whoever fails to oppose a manifest prevarication, can be considered a secret accomplice” (cited by Pope Leo XIII in his letter to the Italian bishops, Aug. 12, 1892).
The IV Lateran Council tells us the same thing in the following words : “We decree that those who give credence to the teachings of heretics, as well as those who receive, defend, or patronize them, are excommunicated.”
No one is above tradition. We read the strong words of St. Paul – “though we, or an angel from heaven etc.”. These are words which include the warning that the office even of a Pope, could be used to spread heresy. So effective is the Sheep’s Clothing of “ecclesiastical office” in promoting error that St. Bernard, Cardinal Newman, and others, logically believed that the only way the Anti-Christ could possibly be so effective in creating a “great apostasy” among Catholics is by becoming an “anti-pope” whom the Catholic world at large would think is a valid Pope. (cf. THE ANTICHRIST in “Catholic Encyclopaedia”).
Thus it’s a matter of choosing between an erroneous human judgements and the infallible judgement of the Church, which for 2000 years has taught that nothing which pertains to the perennial and certain doctrine of the Church and which, in any way whatsoever, direct or indirect, relates to the truths of faith or morals, nothing of the constitution of the Church, nothing of that which has been fixed by Christ and, through His mandate, by the holy Apostles is subject to change.
The following words of St. Athanasius may help to give us conviction in the ongoing battle against modernism in the Church; that is ” Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to a handful, are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” (ca. 296-373) Apud Caillau and Guillou, Coll. Selecta Ss. Eccl. Patrum, vol. 32, pp. 411-412.
In the words of the Jesus we may summaries the Modernists and the post Conciliar hierarchy who have embraced this error by saying “they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. ” Matt 15:14)
As a solution to this modernist crisis we propose simply the solution of Pope Pius X as he mentioned in is his famous consistorial speech, Primum Vos (Nov. 9, 1903), that is” Our task, consists in defending both Christian Truth as well as the Law of Christ.”
It seems clear that we must conclude with Pope Pius X that “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 its infection with it. (Pascendi, 34).
Thus it is clear that despite the war being waged by Modernists in the name of progress and liberty its poisonous errors which we have above expounded must be unmasked and refuted for restoration of the faith and civil society to take effect.
Sources Used:
1. Partisans of Error by Michael Davies,
2. Pius X, by Rene Bazin,
3. Pius X, By Fr. hieronymo Dal-Gal
4. Three Modernists by John Ratte, 5. Enemy within the Gate by John Mckee
6. In the Murky Waters of Vatican II by Atila Sinke Guimaraes,
7. The Second Wave by W. J. Hayes
8. The Modernist Crisis by Von Hugel,
9. Modernism and the Christian Church by Fr. F. Woodlook, S.J.
10. Catholic, Apostolic and Roman by the Priest of Campos Brazil
11. The Mouth of the Lion by Dr. David Allen White
12. Various Works of Pius X
