An oldie, but a goodie.First part of a series of conferences on the modernist crises of St. Pius X.








Transcription

---

I. Introduction: Modernism as the "Collector of All Heresies"
We are going now to start with modernism is to see all these all these ideas that we have been considering until now. All these ideas develop outside the church in opposition to the church. The ideas of the enlightenment. The ideas of Russo. the ideas of of the liberalism of the French Revolution, the ideas of the Protestant or the Protestant German theologians, uh the attempts of the liberal Catholics so as to try to arrive to a certain compromise between the principles of the revolution and Catholicism, the practical realizations of this compromise.
Everything now comes together into modernism. So uh sus the 10th call it in condemning it in the encyclical pendes call it the collector of all heresis. It is to say all these errors that had preceded in this almost 100 years since or 200 years since the enlightenment of the 18th century which are not only which are no more than the modern expression of very ancient errors of very ancient heresies. All these things come together into modernism. So modernism is this revolutionary principles these non-atholic principles not only in the political realm which will be bad enough but also in theology in the faith brought within the church.

---

II. The Historical Reality vs. Modernist Denial
Now it is necessary to I have a schedule two conferences for modernism. Perhaps it will take us a bit longer. It is necessary to to make a historical analysis of modernism because as soon as Pius the 10th condemned it immediately all the modernist denied that such a thing as modernism existed. So that all that that let us let us leave it there that that the modernist themselves deny the existence of modernism of a list of modernism as defined and as condemned by the pope. So it is necessary to show with in the with historical facts that what the pope condemn really existed.
Secondly, because uh the encyclical of St. P the 10th Pendi is a reconstitution of the heresy. And in this sense, as we are going to see, modernism rather than to be a a a complete explicit set of doctrines is the collection of previous errors. previous errors which are interdependent. It is to say that one error leads to the other is connected to the other. One error is the cause of the other error is the effect of the other and one error presupposes the other.

---

III. The Network of Scholars and Their Fields
So in such a manner that if we hold one error in one particular field that will demand that other errors will be upheld in other fields. The modernist themselves dedicated the modernist dedicated themselves to very particular fields of scholarship.

• Biblical Scholarship: Alfred Lassi
• Church History: Monsior Duchen Lu Duchen
• Theology: George Troll
• Philosophy: Maurice Blondelle

So each one of them was upholding an error in their particular field. But if that error is upheld in that particular field, say in church history, it will demand corresponding errors in dogma will cor will demand corresponding errors regarding the inspiration of scripture. So it is like a network of errors. But each one of the modernists is dedicated uh to the promotion to the explicitation and promotion of one particular error and they have no expertise in the other fields.
All of them will be friends and all of them will agree to the theories of the other because they realize that the theories of the others are interrelated dependent or the foundation of the around theories of their own doctrines. So in a sense therefore what what s not in a sense what senius the 10th did is to grasp the error of each one the errors in each field and to bring all of them together showing the interconnection of these errors.
The modernist will react saying "we do not hold all these doctrines. My only point as a church historian is this. My only point as a biblical scholar is this and I don't I don't I don't profess I don't write about all the things." So modernism does not exist or if if this is what is condemned I am not condemned. So it is therefore necessary to show how all these errors are interdependent to show them in their historical succession how they are interdependent and how they are the consequence of previous errors that were already condemned by the church.

---

IV. Modernism as a "Brotherhood," Not a Sect
This also explains that the modernist did not constitute a let us say homogeneous group say they were not a sect that proposed a particular body of doctrine. They were like let us let us define it as as a brotherhood of scholars. So men who are reading the same books, who have suffered the same influences, who have developed the same ideas or very similar ideas, who had the same reactions towards the church, towards the institutions of the church, towards the doctrines of the church.
So they come together spontaneously in the sense that they recognize a an eco of the around doctrines in what the other is teaching in what the other is writing. So they they feel this this sense of comradeship that we are working for the same aims. Many of them will not know will never get to know one another personally. They will read the books of one another. They will praise the books of one another in different reviews. They will circulate the books the books of the others. They will sometimes send people to attend the lectures of the others. They will write one another. They will encourage one another. But each one continues in his own field with his own group with his own disciples.

---

V. Definition: Harmonizing the Church with the Modern World
So working for bringing in this particular field the church up to date with the modern world. And they recognize that the others in the other fields are trying to do exactly the same to bring the church up to date with the modern world.
So therefore, modernism as you will have it in the notes when I finish them as you will have it in the notes is defined as a doctrinal movement movement understood of course in a very loose sense. doctr doctrinal movement which intend to harmonize modern theories with the fundamental principles of Christian dogma in such a manner that they will arrive to compromise or destroy the Christian dogma in points that the church considers essential for her identity and survival. It is say they will try this means they will they will try to operate a fusion a compromise between the theories that are prevalent in the intellectual world in the modern world at large with the principles of Catholic doctrine in such a manner that this compromise eyes will lead to drop Catholic doctrines, Catholic doctrines that the church herself considers essential for her existence.
You see, is a fusion of modern theories with Catholic principles in which the modern theories are the stronger, the Catholic principles give way. The Catholic principles that are put aside that give way before the introduction of modern theories are so essential that the church ceases to be the Catholic Church if these doctrines are put aside. The modernist is defined therefore as the one who acknowledges that there is a certain conflict between the ideas of the modern world and the Catholic principles who nonetheless wants to operate a fusion because he considers that the church will not survive until unless she accepts the theories, the doctrines of the modern war and unless she becomes a bit more upto-date with the modern world because the church has been failing to convert the modern world.

---

VI. The Two Intellectual Sources: Historical and Biblical Criticism
The sources that the origin of this modernism of this doctrinal movement are to be found in two great intellectual scholarly uh tendencies movements of the 19th century. Most both of them in both of them the leading lights of the movement have been German scholars, German Protestant or simply unbelieving scholars. The two fields are historical criticism and biblical criticism.
So the German scholars as I say most of them Protestant liberal Protestants and many of them also simply unbelievers have applied the principles of criticism that were used in the scholarly study of history, the criticism of the written docuмents of the past to discern their authenticity, to discern their truthfulness. these principles that there is no problem when you apply it to Roman inscriptions or Jose or or medieval land deeds had to be applied to the scripture first and to the docuмents of the history of the church afterwards. This was called this method that was developed was called higher criticism.
In this manner therefore the scripture and the ecclesiastical docuмents are examined as if they were simply profane docuмents. There is no no consideration of the supernatural inspiration of scripture because in any case many of them many of these scholars don't believe in it. So don't believe in the scripture don't believe in the supernatural inspiration of the scripture. The scripture the Bible is studied as if it were a purely human docuмent. A purely human docuмent that may have errors that may lie to us that may have been composed and retached and coming from different hands and in which no nothing supernatural can be discerned.
The docuмents of the history of the church are to be studied in the same manner without ever considering that without ever ever taking consideration of the holiness of the church that the church is the mystical body of Christ that God acts in his church. All these are supernatural things which with which we should not be concerning ourselves. So the church is studied as any other human institution. The human aspects of the church are stressed. The divine guidance of the church is simply not considered.

---

VII. The Third Source: Philosophical Criticism (Kant vs. Aquinas)
Apart of this historical criticism and biblical criticism, the other source of modernism is the philosophical criticism of the 19th century. What does this mean? Up to the 19th century, all philosophers, all philosophical systems have acknowledged two basic truths which were necessary for philosophy:

• That human reason has the capacity to grasp the truth to know what things are.
• That there is the possibility of metaphysical knowledge of knowing the essence of things that are beyond the reach of the senses.

The Process of Abstraction
Let me explain this a bit because it is more or less necessary to understand what follows. So we use our senses to know the things that exist outside us. It is to say we have an intelligence and we have our senses. All knowledge that we possess starts in the senses. ... So we walk outside and we see a tree. So we see a tree, we touch the tree, we smell the tree, we bite the bark. ... all our senses are working around this thing and are transmitting to my intelligence an image of what is this that is outside me ...
Now my intelligence ... realizes that among in that among the but that between the oak, the pine, the apple tree there are similots. So our intelligence starts abstracting from the perceptions. ... I have created an abstract notion tree which applies to many different individual concrete realities. So my intelligence has abstracted the common characteristics of each concrete tree to form the concept tree. From this process of abstraction, I can continue going upwards. ... until it arise to the knowledge of things that I have not seen.
By this process of abstraction, I can raise rise myself to the knowledge of things that had not been directly subject to my sensorial perception. Once I have exercised this, all philosophers up to the 19th century have agreed that once I form the concept tree, I know what a tree is. ... all the philosophers have agreed that I can rise myself to the knowledge of invisible truth. That I can rise myself to the knowledge to the rational knowledge by deduction and induction of the existence of God.
The Kantian Revolution
Now in the 19th century the things changed with the German philosophers especially Kant. It was brought into a question the possibility of grasping what the things are and the possibility of knowing what is beyond my senses. Can't argue that when I know I know my intellect applies itself on the image that the senses have transmitted to it. But my intellect does not reach the thing that is outside me.
I say for K that is the problem. I look in the in the screen in my television and I see Mars. Is that Mars is a painting? Is it a fake reconstruction somewhere? The only thing that I see is the image on the screen and I have no way of knowing what the camera is looking at. So Kant asserted that man can know only his own perceptions not the reality that exist outside himself following the general movement of the revolution of Rouso of romanticism can't turns the philosophical reflection upon himself not upon the external reality. I do not know what is outside me and I cannot pass any judgment on the things. The only judgment that I can pass is on what is within myself, my perceptions, the phenomena, not the reality.

The next installment.

The last one was really part of part one. This is truly part two. 






So we have seen a bit how modernism did exist. How modernism was a kind of fellowship of scholars that although they were not holding exactly the same doctrines, nonetheless their doctrines complemented one another and once one of the doctrines was accepted, it demanded the acceptance of the other doctrines. With all the ideas that have existed before and this added on top of it, we will arrive to modernism.


We will see briefly I think in a conference how rapidly modernism spread. In the mid let us say in the third quarter of the 19th century. Pio the 9th condemn all these modern errors. In the third quarter of the century of the 19th century all these errors found their way into the Catholic Church very fast under the pontificate of Leo the 13th. How was it possible this rapid spread of modernism? Again there is all the traditional historians of this period have unfortunately put the blame only the 13th not because he fail in doctrine. The doctrine is perfect. But Leo the 13th, let I say some historians say that he tried to be more popular than pious the ninth. Paris the nine who had ended his pontificate in the general hatred of all the liberals and of all those who who opposed the integral Catholic doctrines.


So Leo the 13th while reasserting the Catholic doctrine unfailingly failed to take action against those who violated these doctrines. So the doctrine was asserted. It was said that those who were not holding these doctrines were outside the Catholic church had ceased to be Catholics. But when the doctrines were openly professed, he didn't take action.


So let us consider briefly certain points of the of the modernist doctrines. We're going to refer to this modernist of which we have been speaking to some some others who are not Catholics but who nonetheless they are their their research their writings contributed to the development of this Catholic modernism and we will also make reference to the things that senior the 10th condemn. I repeat the the con the condemnation the condemnation is contained in the encyclical pashendi is a reconstitution of the heresy. It is to say to bring all these separate doctrines and to show how they interrelate with one another even if not every modernist will hold all of them equally but certainly all the modernist will be found to hold at least one of these doctrines and the point the the genius of seniors the 10th will be to show that once you have accepted one the others logically follow and the the others logically will have to be accepted. And if the modernist in question does not accept them or considers to be false, he's being somehow incoherent in his choice of what he accepts and what he does not accept.


Let us start first with one of the with one problem. The problem of evolution. So as you know in 1859 Charles Darwin published the origin of a speeches and a few years later in 1871 he published the descent of man where he proposed all all the evolutionary theory not only to the for animals for the existing creation but also for man of course once these doctrines have been this evolutionary theory has been proposed The evolutionary theory goes directly against the narration, the narrative of the scripture. Therefore, if the doctrines of Darwin are accepted as scientific truth, it means that the Bible is not true. that the Bible before having proposed something that is not true, something that is a mythical elaboration, not the scientific truth, could not be relied to transmit us accurately truthfully the origins of man. Not transmitting us truthfully the origins of man, it creates in us the doubt of what else is not transmitting us truthfully.


Because of this argument against the origin of man, many other related dogmas, related doctrines held by the church are also called into question. Particularly the doctrine of original sin. If there is not one original manu, there is no possibility of one original fall. is not possibility of one original fault to be transmitted by physical generation. So it is not simply that man was not created as the as the as the as as the Bible says that it means also the doctrine of original sin is wrong and therefore all the moral conclusions that the church has drawn from it are also wrong. It is say that the whole body of moral law of moral regulation that the church that the Christian church has been teaching for 2,000 years are simply fabrication.


It also de explains that if the evolutionary theory is to be accepted as scientific truth, God either does not exist at all. Everything that exist is simply an evolution uh of matter that moves by itself towards a higher is a a a higher complexity or if God exist is a remote first cause that having started the universe does not interfere into it anymore. that the notion of providence has to be dismissed and that the the the wars of the gospel that God that not even a sparrow falls from the sky without God willing it is pure nonsense. So you see that the acceptance of the evolutionary theory will call into question sooner or later the whole of Christian doctrine.


Following Dar Darwin, another an English an English philosopher Herbert Spencer. So establish asserted that evolution in the sense described Darwin. So the constant changing and adaptation and natural selection of the most up forms of life or survival is a law of the whole of creation. It is a law that affects any living reality. It is to say not only chimpanzees and ferns but laws, institutions, the history of men, religion, the church. Everything therefore is continually changing, continually developing, continually adapting to the present cir the circuмstances of the time. things particular adaptations fall by the wayside others survive and transform themselves. Everything is in a constant flux in a perpetual change in a perpetual evolution and this applies particularly to all human realities. So this therefore will will found for modernism as we are going to see the notion we are going to come back to it but later the notion of the evolution of doctrine uh the evolution of dogmas the constant changing of the doctrines of the church.


Now this is the first point. A second point is what we call the biblical question that affected mostly in the modernist times the study of the New Testament in 1835. It was published the life of Jesus by German scholar David Strauss in his life of Jesus. He proposes again what we are going to see afterwards in modernism that the narration of the gospels is an elaboration of the faith of the early Christians. that our Lord Jesus Christ even when talking even the historical Christ when talking to his disciples was referring to very deep truth but clothing it in concrete images concrete images that were understandable for his disciples but the concrete image was not the objective truth that also when his disciples started elaborating doctrines, the doctrines are a rationalization, a proposition of the truth that they have a grasp in their souls. But that does not mean that that doctrine that is proposed has an objective truth in itself. is simply an external relative manifestation of some deeper truth that has been understood in this particular manner and proposed in this particular manner by men of a certain age.


So therefore the gospel he will be somehow ambiguously assert that the being the gospel contains uh spiritual truth but not historically objective true facts. So this will be although the the the work was published in German translated but the great influence of it will be through the publication in 1863 of the life of Jesus by Ernest Renan. His proposition will be the same than Strauss. Christ existed. Christ taught. The gospel preserves a kernel of historical truth of the existence of Christ and of the teachings of Christ. But the text of the gospel is an elaboration, a result, a product of the faith of the early Christians may contain a kernel of truth. But not everything that is written there is true. Again, I was giving you the example today of this morning of Homer's Iliad. So all the scholars agree that Homer is referring to some historical con conflict confrontation between Aayans and Trojans. There was an Asiatic kingdom, extremely powerful, extremely rich that was against which the Greek cities of the mainland wage war and defeated that certain descriptions that Homer gives archaeological evidence proves that they are true. the huge shields which we they were they were fighting the kinds of weapons that they were using but beyond that that the war of Troy lasted 10 years that Agamemnon was the leader of the Greek armies that Achilles fought there that Pam died in the war and all the things those are legend those myth it's very difficult of it's very clear to see what myth. It is more difficult to discern what is exactly true. And of course, there are some homeic scholars who say the whole thing is is a is a literary creation. Nothing of that ever happened.


So the same the same Strauss and Renan says that applies to the scripture to the gospels. There is a kernel of truth. We'll have to apply all our scholar scholarly discernment to try to discover which is the historical truth and is a lot of it which is pure myth. Again the distinction between the Christ of faith and the Christ of history. So trying to find the Christ of history, the scholars will arrive to a very uh restricted uh representation of Christ. He was an ethical teacher like Confucious, like Buddha whose doctrine was centered into the expression of the love of the father for us and on the preaching of a purely spiritual kingdom of moral righteousness. It is to say the thing that he was saying simply is that God has created us. God loves us. We must love him back. And to how do we love him back? Living peacefully and charitably with our neighbor. That's it. Nothing else. Of course, there are no dogmas. uh there are so there are no no theological explanations. There are no Greek philosophical additions as the Catholic theology has added throughout the centuries. There is nothing there is simply a moral teacher who preach love and mutual kindness. something a kingdom that if if it exist exists within the souls nothing else.


This doctrine, this reduction of the historical Christ to only this was proposed mostly by again German philosophers a theologian. uh Alrech Rishel and a historian Adolf von Harn of course as soon as it was proposed this vision of Christ. Okay, this is extremely summarized. So they are Germans. So whatever they wrote something it run in the in the multiple volumes was not something I can say what I have said you just now so vona will take 17 volumes to explain it so I always remember when when I was I was a child since I was since I was a little baby child let us say I always wanted to study history so therefore so I got for my 12 years I got a history of Rome think theor Mson was a great a historian of Rome German historian of Rome so it was the thing like this that was 15 1500 pages more or less was only the Roman Republic which was only say 500 years of the history of Rome and he was talking about something he was talking about Hannibal crossing the Alps And then there was pages and pages and pages and pages of some German general who also crossed the Alps and they're going going going and then a plan of the crossing of the Alps and then the description geological description of the pass the passes on the Alps. I read the whole thing and without pictures but in any case so they go exactly the same manner is the same manner. So all the all these things is simp is very is extremely summarized but the argument is is far more complex until this explanation other scholars contradicted this in fact one not too much one of the one of the scholars was saying that in fact risho was presenting let's say was presenting Christ as a 19th centur Lutheran pastor which in fact said the solution of this other scholar was not better. He said that our Christ has to be replaced in his times. And what what were his times? And he was simply a Jєωιѕн rabbi preaching an apocalyptic doctrine. The immediate coming of the end of the world. something that will happen immediately after his death. So, uh this this these contradictory theories were summarized by Albert Schweitzer. the Schweitzer who was a doctor and a Lutheran who live in Africa who befriended the archbishop when the Arbishop was in Africa also. So Schweiser concluded that historically speaking the gospel is almost worthless. So there may be a kernel of truth in it. Who knows what it is and if it is there it is minimal.


So among will while all this scaly debate is going on this is the time in which our modernists particularly lassi and tur are studying and writing. These are the works of German scholarship that had an influence in their ideas. So when they talk about the that the church has to come up today with modern ideas, it's not only the modern ideas of the social political war, but it's also the modern ideas of the German scholarship. The church has to has to study the same things and has to be able to answer the arguments that these people are drawing against the Catholic Church. But of course every when they start studying all the things they convince themselves that this is the truth and that the church has been in the wrong in I say the third stage in the study of philosophy.


The main influence is a French Henry Bson which in 1900 will publish his most influential book. It is say creative evolution which is to bring into philosophy and theology the Darwinist evolutionism. What he will explain is that as Darwin has proven that evolution exist as Spencer has quote unquote proven that evolution is a law of every living thing of the whole universe. Bersson will conclude that the whole of creation is in perpetual flux in perpetual change. Not only the creatures in it but the act of creation is not yet complete and that the creator himself as soon as as long as he continues creating because creation is not complete also the creator is constantly in flux. So that there is nothing in fixive, nothing immutable, nothing definitive. That life, existence, creation is a perpetual movement, a perpetual change. That nothing is completely made. Everything is in the process of being made. And if something can be said that is already made, it is now in the process of changing and becoming something different.


So this vital let us I say this this principle of movement of change within everything that is this vital he talks about elital the vital impulse that keeps the whole of the thing of beings in flux that is God. The living creatures collaborate in this vital vitality of creation by changing themselves. Not that we can choose it but as long as as long as we exist we are also changing and therefore we are collaborating in the act of creation. This vital impulse has no foresight has no plan. Let us say that quote unquote God has not foresight, has not plan of where he wants to arrive because to fix a term to the act of creation will restrict the freedom of God. and said if perfection according to the liberal mind is freedom the said that we are perfect only when we are free God cannot be perfect unless he is absolutely free and to put an end a design in the act of creation means to impose restrictions in the absolute freedom of Well, so there is no foresight, no providence, no end in view. Therefore, everything is in perpetual change.


Therefore, what should man do? Not try to examine with his reason what exist where everything is going. Not to try to find in all this perpetual flux a fixed moment a fixed point from which standpoint he can judge the rest. There is no intellectual reflection upon all this. There is no composition, no division, no distinction. But man has to somehow suspend the exercise of his reason upon this whole process and jump into it, immerse himself in this flow of consciousness that exists in the universe.


Perhaps the fixation of dogmas of doctrines may have been helpful useful in a certain moment. But if they are held as immutable forever, they limit our freedom. They say impede the ascent, the perfection of man. They impede our collaboration with the creative action of God. They annihilate the vital impulse in ourselves. So everything must be open. Therefore free the great ethical teachers, the great religious leaders again Christ the Buddha, Muhammad, Confucious, loud, whatever it is, they have been men who have been great because they were immersed in this flow of consciousness consciousness they were open they understood this perpetual flux and they try to communicate to their followers the need of uniting themselves with this if it does not sound coherent don't worry because it is not so the other great influence in philosophy in this time is William James your very own so the theory of as the theory of burong can be called the creative evolution the theory of William James is pragmatism he published especially his main work the m most famous and influential was published in 1902. The varieties of religious experience. The system is called pragmatism. It is what is practical, what is useful because he considered that any idea is true when it is alive and when it is and it produces beneficial results.


Now let me explain. We must hold a doctrine as true if it is alive. It is to say if it is a lot of people who holds it. If it is a doctrine that is accepted by many people. If it is accepted by many people, it means that is an expression of the common consciousness of mankind in that particular moment. The common consciousness of mankind in a particular moment in a particular area in a particular culture. So you see how we are hanging around, we are explaining in philosophical and theological terms the theories of Rouso, the formation of a collective self, the formation of a general will that is expressed in certain laws. This is more or less the same. Mankind has a collective consciousness that expresses itself in certain doctrines in certain set of belief in certain things that are called to be true by all the men by men of a particular religion of a particular time of a particular culture. So and if if the idea the doctrine is true if it is alive and if it has beneficial results it is to say that because they believe this particular thing to be true. Men are happier, behave better and draw draw from it some kind of spiritual satisfaction, consolation.


So reading one one book somewhere the the the author was was criticizing the thing in ancient cartes when the Romans were fighting against it. They were the Romans who were very very reasonable men up to the point. So were horrified by the worship of the god Malik. Malik because the the Kardashians. So the idol of Moolok was an immense bronze statue that in certain in certain in certain crisis was heated until it was red hot and it has an opening and as to propitiate Malo in times of crisis in time of danger of for the for Cartes the Kardashians were throwing so at least the leading families were throwing children their first born into it. So thinking that with this sacrifice so Malo will be propitious to them. So applying the theory of William James this belief in Malo was let us say whole by many people. Oh yes all the Kardashians believe in it. draw it beneficial results. The Kartagashinians were although perhaps let us say sad for the loss of their children consoled by the fact that the gods were going to protect cartes at least against the more immediate threat that was Rome. So they were finding some consolation, some spiritual consolation, some strength to fight the war to come. uh they were united to oppose a common front to Rome. So it was beneficial for Kartesh. Therefore the belief in Malo was true for Kartage in this time.


Now Mo seems not paying attention because the Romans defeated Kartesh raise it to the ground and the Romans who were upset after fighting three wars against the Carthaginians decided never more. So in the third war, so they they defeated the Carthaginians and they destroyed the fleet. They kill all the men in fighting in fighting age. They sold the whole population of Kartesh into slavery. They burn the city, demolish the city, throw the throw the stones into the sea and with them with with um how do you call them? plow plow plow the ground and and and throw throw salt into it so nothing else will grow in the place. So and kes cease to exist. So in that moment the belief in mo ce to be true. There was nobody really to hold it and the even if they continue to hold it there was no beneficial result from it. So the belief in Malok is no more true.


So passing to let us say started with one two three one two three four. Let us consider church history. The German higer criticism had brought doubts about the authenticity the truthfulness of the Bible. So the same critical critical method that has been applied to the Bible, the Germans also apply to the history of the church. Many of these German scholars as I have said that were not only Protestants but many of them were simply unbelievers. In any case, not people well disposed towards the Catholic Church. So in reading the history of the church, in analyzing the docuмents of the history of the church, they denied any kind of supernatural character, supernatural intervention. Anything that appeared to be supernatural intervention in the history of the church is simply myth, legend. We have to stick to the hard scientific facts. What can be proven with docuмents in hand? If there is no docuмent, if there is no proof, it is a myth. It's a legend. And even if it is a docuмent that talks about it, it is false. It is a lie.


Many Catholic scholars encouraged of course by the Pope Leo the 13th dedicated themselves to this historical criticism. It was necessary to answer to the adversaries the arguments that they were advancing against the history of the church and far from the mind of the church to try to teach uh what is false. So Leo the 13th gave the great the great command for all the Catholic historians. So never be afraid of afraid of telling the truth. So if they were weaknesses and and errors and unjust actions on the part of the church, don't whitewash it. Don't deny that it ever existed. But of course also stress the good that has existed in the church. The holiness of the church, the holiness in the church that has no explanation but in the guidance of the Holy Ghost, the protection of God. So do not hide the truth but tell all the truth also the particular guidance by the Holy Ghost.


Many Catholic scholars nonetheless were somehow tainted by the non-atholic scholarship. They got had a good intentions but stressing more the hard scientific facts. making everything that was accepted to be truth as relying in docuмents which had been critically analyzed by preferring not to talk too much of those things of which they didn't have hard docuмentary proof like the guidance of the Holy Ghost in the church by imitating the tone the sarcastic high-handed tone of the German historians which were Protestants or non-believers. They left the impression that science was the only thing that was telling the truth and that the church has harbor and promoted myth and legends. Only things is are easily found in some of the great historical liberal works. the German bishop Ign German German scholar Ignas von Dolinger who will leave the church to found the old Catholic sect after the first Vatican council. Laurakton in England who will be a liberal Catholic. Uh Mons Duchen who will be tainted by modernism. But there are also some of the things that you also read like the lives of the saints by Butler which the one that we have always at hand is the revised edition of Butler by Herbert Thirstston Jesuit which is affected by this by this spirit of the historical scholarship. uh they also they will imitating the tone. They will be sarcastic about the things that the church has taught that some of the traditions the customs of the church assertions of the church in the past. They will lack reverence towards the church and again say everything that cannot be proven with a docuмent in hand is simply dismissive not as untrue but as something that is better not to talk about because we cannot prove it.


Coming now to the fifth whatever it is the history of dogmas the evolutionary ideas promoted by Sally Darwin Spencer Bersong and all those who in Catholic scholarly circles follow them. The evolutionary ideas became what is called historical relativism in the sense that our thoughts and actions are largely or totally determined by the times we live in. And it is not to deny that our times the times in which we live the world that surrounds us has an influence in the manner in which we think and we act. But this historical relativism says that the very notions of truth and goodness are depending on the historical times. As the time passes, the ideas of men, their institutions, their laws change, evolve, become something perhaps totally different of what they were before. Oddly enough, although many historians asserted that everything changes and they They took the stand that what the historian says today looking at the history of the church is valid forever. Okay. So the historian is the only thing that is stable. The judgment of the historian on the the on the has a say nonsensical character of something has value forever. It doesn't matter.


This does not mean that the church has not accepted the notion of the development of doctrine. The development of doctrine means that the church by reflection upon the deposit of faith. The church understands better what was transmitted to her. So the church organizes what has been received. So interprets it, deepens her understanding of it, explicits it, draw conclusion, draws conclusions from it. And the body of doctrine therefore is like a tree growing developing. There is a seed that has been planted entrusted to the church and the church has taken care that that seed continues growing. So say the deposit of faith therefore develops with the guidance under the h guidance of the holy ghost. That is the development of doctrine. For this reason Catholic doctrine talks about the homogeneous development of doctrine. It is to say that what becomes the doctrine that becomes more clear explicit now is the logical consequence of what preceded it. that a doctrine that is explicited today cannot contradict the deposit of faith. If it contradicts, it is heretical. It is not a legitimate development. It is an invention that has nothing to do with it.


So the truth that I grasp today all the body of truth that is grasped today is greater than the body of truth grasped by the early Christians. We believe more doctrines than they. But the doctrines that we believe are simply the development, the explicitation of what they believe. For the reason you will see that in any dogmatic definition by a pope or a council the dogmatic def the first step of the dogmatic definition is to show where this dogma is rooted in the revelation received that it is that the first step of any dogmatic definition is to show the passage in scripture from which it stems. That is not clear in the passage of scripture. Granted, that is the theological reflection of the church under the the guidance of the Holy Ghost to arrive to this explicitation of something that is already contained there in the sea that we can say that the oak tree is contained in the seed of the oak tree. But of course this development is never never contradicts the root from which it stems. It is impossible for a doctrine to say something in today and in 100 years say exactly the contrary the contradictory of what he has taught today. So for the modernist none of this it is evolution. The thing changes becomes different according to the ages. So the great culprit in all this was again Von Harnak who wrote a seven volume history of dogmas. Why he shows how throughout the life of the church doctrines have changed and what the churches may hold today especially what the Catholic Church holds today has nothing to do with what Christ preaching.


So there is a last point in all the modernist doctrines that pious the 11th pio ah St. P the 10th will explicit in his encyclical pashendi the condemnation of modernism which is called the principle of the vital imminence. This principle I have left it to the end because it comes down to what I have already explained the other day talking about mahar a lesson that faith is a sentiment a sentiment that arises from the depth of our consciousness that revelation takes place in the depth of our soul. that there is no external revelation, that God does not force us to assert to a truth that is proposed to us from the outside, that God has not sent prophets, that God has not sent ecclesiastical teachers to tell us what we have to believe, but that God has spoken to each one of us in our hearts directing us to believe in him.


The manners in which we have expressed our belief in him. The manners in which we have communicated with our fellow men. What we have experienced in our heart. This external manifestation of our internal experience changes according to times, nation, culture, particular temperamental differences between men. So God speaks equally to all of us. God directs all of us to acknowledge him as above us to love him and to love one another. The external manifestations of all this will be utterly different in this manner. Therefore, we cannot say that one religion is more is true and the others are not. All of them are true. All of them are the vital experimental experiential response to the same prompting of God in our soul. As long as we answer to him, so we are in the right path. Whatever external manifestations it takes, whatever is the picture, the mental picture that we make ourselves of God, the manner in which we choose to show our reverence, our reverence for him is of only accidental value. The truth of our belief is not in that but in the internal experience in our vital response to the prompting of God. So there is no religion that is truer than the others. We cannot dismiss any religion as false. But every religion is a valid response of man to God. 


Of course, many Catholics will hold that of all the responses, the kind of most uh comprehensive is a Catholic response. Not truer, but more rounded. So in this sense therefore Catholicism could show the way to the others. Show the way not imposing the Catholic doctrines but showing the showing the way how this response to the prompings of God could be more rounded more satisfactory. Okay we'll continue later.