Slippery Animal

People today are not normal or sane.
All history shows no comparable bane.

“Modernism is necessarily, by its very nature, a uniquely slippery animal.” Modernism being the present deadly enemy of the Catholic Church, it can never be analysed enough. As enemy of the Church in particular, it can be defined as that movement of thought and belief which holds that the Church must be adapted to the modern world by the appearance of Catholicism being maintained while its substance is changed. It has infected Catholics without number since it gained official approval from the very top of the Church at Vatican II, and it has set many cardinals, bishops and priests on the road to eternal perdition, let alone laity, by undermining their Catholic faith. Let us see again why it is slippery, and uniquely slippery.

It is a slippery animal because like all heresies it had to disguise itself to seem acceptable to its target, believing Catholics. So it is constantly using ambiguous formulae of words interpretable in a Catholic or anti-catholic sense. The Catholics piously accept the Catholic sense and swallow the words, only to have the modernists turn them to poison by exploiting the anti-catholic sense. Vatican II is ambiguous from start to finish, choosing formulae of words that can slip and slide between the Church and the modern world, so as to hide the intrinsic mutual contradiction of these two. To Paul VI, believing profoundly in both Church and world (as he conceived them), such formulae came instinctively and abundantly. The docuмents of his Council, Vatican II, are shot through with ambiguity. Yet by these ambiguities Paul VI really thought he would save both Church and world, exactly as Bishop Fellay now hopes that by talking out of both sides of his mouth he will save both Catholic Tradition and the Council. Vain hope! God “detests the double tongue” (Prov. VIII, 13). It has always served to trick Catholics into abandoning their faith.

But more than just slippery, modernism is amongst all heresies uniquely slippery, because as Pius X said in “Pascendi,” it is the heresy of heresies, like a main sewer collecting in itself all the filth of all the minor sewers, or particular heresies. This is because it is the product (and producer) of minds that have slipped anchor from anchorage in any truth whatsoever, so that any counter-truth or heresy is entirely at home in modernism. And this is because its fundamental principle is philosophical, the human mind’s supposed inability to know anything whatsoever beyond what appears to men’s five external senses. Such a mind is like a dirty wine-bottle. It dirties anything poured into it, even the finest of wines or the sublimest of truths. For while any other heresy attacks a particular truth of the Faith, the philosophical error at the root of modernism undermines universal truth, even while it can pretend that it is not attacking any truth in particular. For instance Benedict XVI would no doubt be horrified if he were accused of disbelieving any Article of the Creed, but that does not stop him from being ready to “up-date” them all.

Now never have so many minds slipped all anchor in objective truth as today, such slipping being man’s final liberation, whereby reality can no longer impose itself on me, but I can impose myself on all reality. I have taken the place of God. Thus too many Catholics were infected by today’s world and welcomed modernism when it reared its head again at Vatican II, because here was the Pope himself giving the apparent seal of Catholic approval to their undermining of all Catholic Truth. They were free, and still Catholic. Cry freedom throughout the Church!

Then how deal with this “uniquely slippery animal”? Certainly not by going down to Rome to mix with its main victims and perpetrators, the present officials at the top of the Church. Satan himself might not have a long enough spoon to sup safely with these (objective) foxes and sharks and wolves, all the more dangerous for their possible (subjective) unawareness of their own condition. Pray the Rosary for Our Lady to build around your heads and hearts her own protective armour.

Kyrie eleison.

For instance Benedict XVI would no doubt be horrified if he were accused of disbelieving any Article of the Creed, but that does not stop him from being ready to “up-date” them all.

How about "up-dating" other prayers, like the Our Father?  

JPII once said we shouldn't pray "And lead us not into temptation" because, he said, God doesn't lead us into temptation.  

Then how deal with this “uniquely slippery animal”? Certainly not by going down to Rome to mix with its main victims and perpetrators, the present officials at the top of the Church.

....and certainly by not attending the High Liturgy of Modernism, the battering ram of the foxes and sharks where their crimes are being daily perpetrated..............

Slippery indeed!

Unfortunately, the 'bible' on Modernism, Pascendi dominici gregis, was written using Modernistic linguistics. Vague and verbose it's rule. Akin to reading an overtly long rough draft that you sense could be dramatically cleaned up to get to the point. It's mental pondering more expected of theologians communicating to other theologians speculative theology where saliency can be ignored.

Pius X wasn't communicating minor details of theology for theologians; but a cry in the wilderness to both religious and faithful of the onslaught of the final heresy or if you will; the heresy of heresies that results in losing Catholic membership. Only if Pascendi was written in the clarity of the Syllabus.

Modernistic influences were present in even pre-Vatican II manuals (Tanquerey and Van Noort come to mind); where epistemic limitations were justified *at times* with a mere hand-waving and selective proof-texting to establish an assertion in eisegesis.

Perhaps you have some secret knowledge you would like to share with us but this is the first time I have ever heard that St Pius X's encyclical Pascendi is infected with the same errors that it purported to condemn! Unless, I am gravely mistaken, is that what you are saying?

Did St Pius X not thoroughly understand the whole system of modernist thought? Modernism isn't one heresy but a whole way of thinking built on subjectivism, immanentism, and is the fruit of modern philosophy which has severed the tie between the mind and reality. You state that the encyclical is vague and verbose --- well I am sorry but that statement there is vague. Explain how it is those two things. Quad gratis affirmatur, gratis negatur. What is freely affirmed can be freely denied. Before you state that there is a fundamental flaw with this encyclical you must prove it. All you have done is asserted things that are quite shocking with all due respect.

Have you read Bishop Williamson's analysis on Pascendi? Or do you state that he is infected with the same errors he has sought to condemn?

I don't deny that there were problems before Vatican II but what are you precisely trying to state? It is good to look to the Syllabus as a sort of guide but when Pius IX gave those condemnations, modernism as a complete system was not yet formed. You can't compare the Syllabus with Pascendi in that sense.

Catechism of Modernism (PDF)

Quote from: The Penny Catechism

Unfortunately, the 'bible' on Modernism, Pascendi dominici gregis, was written using Modernistic linguistics. Vague and verbose it's rule. Akin to reading an overtly long rough draft that you sense could be dramatically cleaned up to get to the point. It's mental pondering more expected of theologians communicating to other theologians speculative theology where saliency can be ignored.

Pius X wasn't communicating minor details of theology for theologians; but a cry in the wilderness to both religious and faithful of the onslaught of the final heresy or if you will; the heresy of heresies that results in losing Catholic membership. Only if Pascendi was written in the clarity of the Syllabus.

Modernistic influences were present in even pre-Vatican II manuals (Tanquerey and Van Noort come to mind); where epistemic limitations were justified *at times* with a mere hand-waving and selective proof-texting to establish an assertion in eisegesis.

“Pascendi… written using Modernistic linguistics.” This is absurd. It is not “vague” and it is not “verbose.” Linguistics is the study of form, meaning and context of language. The linguistic foundation of Modernism is Deconstructionism which is the denial of the intentionality of language. It is absurd to say or imply that Pascendi employs anything of the sort.

The encyclical was addressed to Catholic bishops who were intelligent and educated men. It was not expected that laymen, especially at the time of publication, would understand the matter with clarity especially if they were not well grounded in scholastic philosophy and theology. But that was a hundred years ago. We have the added benefit of many faithful Catholics as competent experts who have helped in the proper understanding of the docuмent, and most importantly, we are no longer dealing with the speculative matter but are standing in this midst of the wreckage of its practical application. Bishop Williams is absolutely correct when he says that Pascendi “can never be analyzed enough.” I have never read the encyclical without taking away new insights into the nature of the heresy.

Pascendi contains everything a faithful Catholic needs to know and needs to do to keep in God’s good graces. Even the most average of Catholic intellects can understand that it clearly affirms the immutability of dogma and the necessary importance of our ecclesiastical traditions which are not matters of simple discipline subject to the free and arbitrary will of human authority, but are rather necessary attributes of the faith. It affirms that those who deny our ecclesiastical traditions are heretics.

Really, if this is all that is learned from the encyclical, it is more than enough.

Drew

Well-stated Drew.

Perhaps you have some secret knowledge you would like to share with us but this is the first time I have ever heard that St Pius X's encyclical Pascendi is infected with the same errors that it purported to condemn! Unless, I am gravely mistaken, is that what you are saying?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Didn’t claim secret knowledge. Same errors? I didn’t remotely condemn Pascendi as having content errors –but instead to its ability to be apprehended by enough people (lay people) and clergy to be effectively carried out. Unless you think Modernism has since been eliminated? Get real.

Did St Pius X not thoroughly understand the whole system of modernist thought? Modernism isn't one heresy but a whole way of thinking built on subjectivism, immanentism, and is the fruit of modern philosophy which has severed the tie between the mind and reality.

I agree 100%. That's why I recognize it as the 'bible' of understanding Modernism as I previously wrote. Did I not ?

You state that the encyclical is vague and verbose --- well I am sorry but that statement there is vague. Explain how it is those two things. Quad gratis affirmatur, gratis negatur. What is freely affirmed can be freely denied. Before you state that there is a fundamental flaw with this encyclical you must prove it. All you have done is asserted things that are quite shocking with all due respect.

My complaint again was towards linguistics, which also includes syntax which influences the conveying of ideas. I still stand by what I wrote that it could have been written more concisely and to the point. Not towards the content itself which would then make it a critique towards the theories it purports. Which I didn't do.

Have you read Bishop Williamson's analysis on Pascendi? Or do you state that he is infected with the same errors he has sought to condemn?

I have heard of + Williamson's analysis of Modernism and agree.

I don't deny that there were problems before Vatican II but what are you precisely trying to state? It is good to look to the Syllabus as a sort of guide but when Pius IX gave those condemnations, modernism as a complete system was not yet formed. You can't compare the Syllabus with Pascendi in that sense.

It was NOT to the content nor did I even mention the Syllabus in any other context other than for it’s clarity in communicating it’s bullet point message. However, both you and Drew certainly have the right to disagree wholeheartedly. I understand. However I think it’s foolish not to recognize that following Pius X’s reign; that in less than 50 years we had Vatican II – that was formed by the very pre-vatican II clerics (bishops) around the world (with their Scholastic training) that was supposed to have understood and implemented Pascendi. If Pascendi was so well understood and so easily taken in; why do we have a Catholic Church today where millions and millions of Catholics have a belief system that is irreconcilable with holding the Faith (ie contraception). The various factions and disagreements in the Traditionalist movement to the point where many now don’t know how we’re going to get out of it unless Christ Himself comes back. I again apologize for any misunderstandings. It was NOT my intent to be critical at the content of Pascendi, but merely it’s effect at preventing that which it was purported to prevent. In the spirit of not "slugging it out" over what I perceive to be an unfortunate misunderstanding;  I will not take this any further. In this, to each his own; and sorry for the obvious angst this caused.

It was NOT to the content nor did I even mention the Syllabus in any other context other than for it’s clarity in communicating it’s bullet point message. However, both you and Drew certainly have the right to disagree wholeheartedly. I understand. However I think it’s foolish not to recognize that following Pius X’s reign; that in less than 50 years we had Vatican II – that was formed by the very pre-vatican II clerics (bishops) around the world (with their Scholastic training) that was supposed to have understood and implemented Pascendi. If Pascendi was so well understood and so easily taken in; why do we have a Catholic Church today where millions and millions of Catholics have a belief system that is irreconcilable with holding the Faith (ie contraception). The various factions and disagreements in the Traditionalist movement to the point where many now don’t know how we’re going to get out of it unless Christ Himself comes back. I again apologize for any misunderstandings. It was NOT my intent to be critical at the content of Pascendi, but merely it’s effect at preventing that which it was purported to prevent. In the spirit of not "slugging it out" over what I perceive to be an unfortunate misunderstanding;  I will not take this any further. In this, to each his own; and sorry for the obvious angst this caused.

This argument proves nothing.  The condemnation of a heresy is not the same as its general extermination.  It’s quite the opposite.  Like a burglar in your home, the fight begins when you shine the light on him.  

History of heresy demonstrates that the worst damage occurs after its condemnation.  The Arian crisis in the Church occurred after its condemnation at Nicaea.  The same thing applies to Monothelitism which is just a variation of Monophysitism, and in this sense, it is analogous to Modernism and Neo-modernism.  In both examples the heresies have the same ends but employ different means.  Monothelitism and Monophysitism both attack the nature of the Incarnation.  Modernism and Neo-modernism both attack dogma in its essence.  What occurs in both cases is God forewarning His faithful before the heresy is generally spread throughout His Church.

The heresy we are dealing with today is Neo-modernism which like Modernism attacks dogma.  They differ in their method.  Modernism denies dogma directly as unknowable in the objective order.  Neo-Modernism denies dogma indirectly by two methods: One is by changing the meaning of the terms in a dogmatic proposition OR the universality of its copula.  A specific example was made in another post citing Benedict/Ratzingers redefining the term, substance.  

The second method is moving a dogma from its proper category of Truth/Falsehood to the category of Authority/Obedience.  The former binds always and everywhere.  The latter is subject to all the moral restrictions that govern human acts.  The dogma regarding the necessity of the sacraments for salvation is a good example of this where Neo-modernists claim that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation in cases of ignorance, impossibility, excessive burden either moral or physical, fear, compulsion, etc.  A whole list can be seen in any moral theology manual under what excuses or mitigates disobedience to laws, commands, injunctions, etc.  

But even Neo-modernism is directly condemned in Pascendi when the immutability of dogma is affirmed and immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are directly affirmed to belong to the category of dogma, and are not therefore, simple disciplinary matters subject to the free and independent will of Church authority.  The encyclical thoroughly arms the faithful Catholic against the deluge of errors under which we currently suffer and informs faithful Catholics what they must do because all ecclesiastical traditions are acts.  

I cannot remember from whom but our Lord told a saint that He permits heresy to sift His true faithful.  It is a time of winnowing the wheat from the chaff.  No Catholic can claim that they were not sufficiently warned.  Every Catholic of good-will can discern the fruit of Neo-modernism from the top down.

One notes in particular in traditionally Catholic regions a very strong decline in participation at Sunday Mass, not to mention the sacramental life.  Where in the 1960s everywhere just about all the faithful still participated at Holy Mass every Sunday, today there are often less than 10 percent.  Ever fewer people seek the sacraments.  The Sacrament of Penance has almost disappeared.  Ever fewer Catholics receive Confirmation or contract Catholic Matrimony.  The number of vocations to priestly ministry and the consecrated life has sharply diminished.  In consideration of these facts, one can speak truly of an erosion of the Catholic Faith in Germany.
Pope Francis, addressing the German bishops, Nov. 2015

No one will have any excuse for this heresy especially Francis. We will always be indebted to St. Pius X and his encyclical Pascendi for arming us in this fight.
 
Drew