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 White House is filled with Protestants.  What they wrote was pretty pro/catholic, for a Protestant.  It wasn’t meant as a doctrinal dissertation.  You guys just expect WAY too much.  Almost borderline insane expectations. 

Unmet expectations = suffering.  Dial back your expectations and you dial back your blood pressure.

More from another one 

Isn't the VICE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF STATE "CATHOLIC"  Yeah, I guess they aren't around much, so we should just excuse it some more right?

You cover for his heresy.

Go on then, dig us up some more Protestant Presidential quotes about Jesus, or his Mother and try to spin them as positive... 

I don't expect Trump to spew anything BUT heresy. Rather it is YOU I expect to know better - don't be a tard. 

P.S. *Blood pressure is only slightly elevated (due to your moronic intransigence), I have dealt with a fair amount of stress and this is nothing, I am however appalled at your lack of concerning for correcting error/heresy WHEREVER it is found. Now it is actually fine, it only took a few seconds to pass. 

It makes perfect sense that Trump and/or his administration would believe that God became man at Our Lord's Birth, precisely because they are A-OK with IVF (murder) and leaving abortion (murder) "up to the states".

If God became man at the Incarnation..well, that means life begins at conception..and that means IVF is murder

And guess what religious group also shares that same Birth = Personhood belief?

From Gemini AI:

In the тαℓмυdic and broader Jєωιѕн legal tradition, the status of life is viewed as a gradual development rather than a single moment of "personhood" at conception. While the fetus is highly valued as potential life, it does not achieve the legal status of a full "person" (nefesh) until birth.

The тαℓмυdic perspective generally breaks down into three distinct stages:

1. The First 40 Days: "Mere Water"

From conception until the 40th day of gestation, the тαℓмυd (specifically in Yevamot 69b) describes the embryo as maya b’alma, which translates to "mere water" or "mere fluid." During this initial period:

• The embryo is not considered to have any independent status or human form.
• In legal terms regarding inheritance or ritual purity, it is treated as though it does not yet exist as a distinct entity.

2. 40 Days to Birth: "A Part of the Mother"

After the 40th day and until the moment of birth, the fetus is considered a "potential life." However, it is legally defined as ubar yerech immo—literally, "the thigh of its mother."

Part of the Body: The fetus is considered an integral part of the pregnant person's body, similar to an organ, rather than a separate person.

Prioritizing the Mother: Because the fetus is "potential life" and the mother is an "existing life," Jєωιѕн law (Halakha) mandates that if the mother's life or health is at risk, her life takes absolute precedence.


3. Birth: The Beginning of Personhood

According to the Mishnah (Ohalot 7:6), full personhood (nefesh) is established only at the moment of birth.

The Threshold: The тαℓмυd defines this moment as when the "greater part" of the body (or the head) emerges from the birth canal.

The "First Breath": Many commentators link this to the "breath of life" mentioned in Genesis, suggesting that the soul (neshamah) fully enters the body with the first independent breath.

Legal Equality: Only after this point is the baby considered a separate person with legal rights equal to the mother. At this stage, one life cannot be set aside for another.

---

Summary Table: Status of Life in the тαℓмυd

Stage	тαℓмυdic Term	Status
0–40 Days	Maya b’alma	"Mere water"; no formal status.
40 Days to Birth	Ubar yerech immo	Part of the mother's body; potential life.
Emergence (Birth)	Nefesh	Full human personhood and legal rights.

Note on Viability: Historically, the тαℓмυd also mentions a 30-day period after birth where a child is not considered fully "viable" (ben kayama) until they have survived a month, though modern Jєωιѕн law treats newborns as full persons from the moment of birth due to advances in medical care.

They are making a conclusion about sin. This is what they are required to do. Priests make rules about approaching the communion rail. Those policies aren't looked at as mere opinion that they shouldn't be making. Every accepts those rules even when they differ among priests.

The Church makes the rules, not priests.