I would like to hear people's thoughts on the authenticity of some to the epistles attributed to St. Paul.  Someone on facebook just said the following and I would like to provide a well-formulated rebuttal:

"[St. Bridget] is a conglomerate of saintly women whose names are lost. We shouldn't be afraid of that. In the days prior to true written history and oral traditions, this is only natural. For instance, many epistles attributed to St. Paul were not actually his own writings. Many great scholars more learned and holy than we spend lifetimes studying this stuff."

I responded with the following 8 hrs ago, and I have not heard anything since:

I concede the possibility that popular culture may have attributed some stories of mythical origin to St. Bridget, but the pagans would like to erase her completely from history, despite a mountain of evidence pointing to her existence, and the fact that she is a canonized saint. As for the Pauline epistles, I respectfully disagree with you regarding the scholars doing this work. Pope St. Pius X warned us of modernists, claiming to be historians, in his encyclical Pascendi Gregis. He wrote the following, regarding treatment of the Bible:

How the Bible is Dealt With

34. The result of this dismembering of the Sacred Books and this partition of them throughout the centuries is naturally that the Scriptures can no longer be attributed to the authors whose names they bear. The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming commonly that these books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed by additions to a primitive brief narration - by interpolations of theological or allegorical interpretation, by transitions, by joining different passages together. This means, briefly, that in the Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding with evolution of faith. The traces of this evolution, they tell us, are so visible in the books that one might almost write a history of them. Indeed this history they do actually write, and with such an easy security that one might believe them to have with their own eyes seen the writers at work through the ages amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this they call to their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, and labour to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, and adducing other arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their decision as to whether a thing is out of place or not. Judge if you can how men with such a system are fitted for practising this kind of criticism. To hear them talk about their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the pages of Scripture, whereas the truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding imperfections in them, have thanked God more and more the deeper they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately, these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for their guide and rule, - a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves.h

I responded with the following 8 hrs ago, and I have not heard anything since:

I concede the possibility that popular culture may have attributed some stories of mythical origin to St. Bridget, but the pagans would like to erase her completely from history, despite a mountain of evidence pointing to her existence, and the fact that she is a canonized saint. As for the Pauline epistles, I respectfully disagree with you regarding the scholars doing this work. Pope St. Pius X warned us of modernists, claiming to be historians, in his encyclical Pascendi Gregis. He wrote the following, regarding treatment of the Bible:

How the Bible is Dealt With

34. The result of this dismembering of the Sacred Books and this partition of them throughout the centuries is naturally that the Scriptures can no longer be attributed to the authors whose names they bear. The Modernists have no hesitation in affirming commonly that these books, and especially the Pentateuch and the first three Gospels, have been gradually formed by additions to a primitive brief narration - by interpolations of theological or allegorical interpretation, by transitions, by joining different passages together. This means, briefly, that in the Sacred Books we must admit a vital evolution, springing from and corresponding with evolution of faith. The traces of this evolution, they tell us, are so visible in the books that one might almost write a history of them. Indeed this history they do actually write, and with such an easy security that one might believe them to have with their own eyes seen the writers at work through the ages amplifying the Sacred Books. To aid them in this they call to their assistance that branch of criticism which they call textual, and labour to show that such a fact or such a phrase is not in its right place, and adducing other arguments of the same kind. They seem, in fact, to have constructed for themselves certain types of narration and discourses, upon which they base their decision as to whether a thing is out of place or not. Judge if you can how men with such a system are fitted for practising this kind of criticism. To hear them talk about their works on the Sacred Books, in which they have been able to discover so much that is defective, one would imagine that before them nobody ever even glanced through the pages of Scripture, whereas the truth is that a whole multitude of Doctors, infinitely superior to them in genius, in erudition, in sanctity, have sifted the Sacred Books in every way, and so far from finding imperfections in them, have thanked God more and more the deeper they have gone into them, for His divine bounty in having vouchsafed to speak thus to men. Unfortunately, these great Doctors did not enjoy the same aids to study that are possessed by the Modernists for their guide and rule, - a philosophy borrowed from the negation of God, and a criterion which consists of themselves.

It seems to me you could hardly find a better reference than Pascendi dominici gregis.  I would also recommend the entirety of Sacrorum Antistitum, that is, the Oath Against Modernism.  Modernists hate both these docuмents and if they're honest, they admit that they refuse to abide by these Papal doctrines of the highest authority.  

If they ask you, "What do you mean by 'highest authority'?  They were not dogmatic definitions!"  -you can respond that actually, they were infallible, because ANYTHING ONCE CONDEMNED BY ONE POPE IS CONDEMNED IN ETERNITY, and is therefore not reformable;  IOW, it is infallible.  This is the power that the Pope (John XXIII) gave up on the Feast of the Divine Maternity of Our Lady, October 11th, 1962 with his M.R.S.


.