Decadent Is The Word To Describe Conciliarism, Not Scholasticism

There is so little “new” to write about anything the conciliar revolutionaries do or say at this point that has not been written on this site alone hundreds upon hundreds of times.

Indeed, it was just about two years ago that No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth was published. Although a second volume could be published in light of events that took place after its publication, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s journeys in the past two years and, of course, the issuance and the aftermath of Amoris Laetitia on March 19, 2016, the book’s basic thrust is pretty timeless, especially pertaining to the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s constant warfare on the nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than a direct attack on the nature of God Himself, and on the very existence of any kind of objective moral truth knowable by reason alone unaided by Divine Revelation.

As I am well aware that the sheer plethora of material extant about the conciliar revolution is mind-numbing and can be difficult for many people to remember, I want to use this reasonably brief commentary to provide a concise review of conciliarism’s warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth that is nothing other than Modernism’s “evolution of dogma” no matter how many times the conciliar revolutionaries relabel and repackage it. Such a review is necessary in light of the false "pontiff's" disparagement of what he termed as "decadent Scholasticism" in one of his seemingly endless series of interviews that appear now and again in La Civilta Cattolica (see Francis Denounces Decadent Scholasticism.)

Perhaps the best way to begin to give a summary of what the conciliarists believe about the nature of dogmatic truth. There are several sources that can be brought to bear to provide such a summary, starting with Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, which condemned propositions to which the conciliar revolutionaries adhere with exacting fidelity. Here is one of those propositions, among others, to which the conciliar revolutionaries adhere concerning the nature of Divine Revelation and dogmatic truth:

5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. -- Ibid. (Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)

In other words, it is impossible to know with certitude the truths of the Holy Faith because human language is inadequate to express the infinite variety of aspects which they contain. The expression of dogmatic truths thus is contingent on the historical circumstances and the particular biases of those who formulate it.

Who has told us this?

Well, there are numerous conciliar revolutionaries who have told us this over the past fifty-four years, three months, twenty-five days since the start of the “Second” Vatican Council on October 11, 1962, the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. One of them who did so was Albert "Cardinal Meyer," the Archbishop of Chicago from September 18, 1958, to the time of his death on April 9, 1965, in two interventions he made at that illicit council on September 30, 1964, the Feast of Saint Jerome, and October 8, 1964 the Feast of Saint Brigid, as the council fathers considered the conciliar church's Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, which was issued on November 18, 1965, the Feast of the Dedication of the Basilicas of Saints Peter and Paul:

What I have to say in this brief intervention has to do specially with chapter 2, paragraph 8, of our schema. The whole of chapter 2 pleases me very much, and in particular the way in which paragraph 8 shows that tradition is living, is dynamic, is total, is dynamic, that is, it consists not only in doctrinal propositions, but also of the worship and practice of the whole Church. . . . However, this paragraph, if I have understood it correctly. . . . presents the life and the worship of the Church only in its positive aspect. As I understand it, tradition, in this paragraph, extends beyond the limits of infallible magisterium. If this interpretation is correct, then this tradition is subject to the limits and the failings of the pilgrim Church, which is a Church of sinners, that knows divine things “indistinctly, as in a mirror.” The history of the Church offers multiple proofs of such failings, for example, the fact that the theological doctrine of the Resurrection of Christ was for a long time obscured, that piety was non-liturgical, that Sacred Scripture was neglected, and other like things.  Consequently, this paragraph needs to be completed by adding words about these failings that are always possible in this life, and by proposing remedies for them. I therefore suggestion to the Fathers the following formula. . . . “However, that living progress does not make progress always and in every respect. For when the Church ponders divine things in its pilgrim state, in some respects it can fail, and it does in fact fail. For this reason it carries Sacred Scripture in itself as a perpetual norm, so that it can unceasingly correct and perfect itself by conforming its life to this norm.” (As found in an article by Father Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., “Catholic Tradition and Traditions. Michael J. Lacey and Francis Oakley, editors, The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 114. (See The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity.)

"Cardinal Meyer" was attacking the very foundation of the nature of Divine Revelation, and he believed that the Church could fail in her proclamation of doctrine. He also repeated the old lie of Martin Luther and his followers that the Catholic Church had neglected Sacred Scripture and that the piety of the faithful was non-liturgical, beliefs constituted nothing other than an attack upon Holy Mother Church's Divine Constitution. It was thus necessary for Meyer to attack the nature of Divine Revelation in order to make the proposal that Sacred Scripture can "correct" itself.

Taken together, of course, one can see that “Cardinal” Meyer was advancing a view of a “living tradition” that was nothing other than Modernism’s “evolution of dogma.” It is this condemned Modernist precept that is at the foundation of the process of theological, liturgical, moral and pastoral degeneration that has accelerated apace during the past twenty months since the “election” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Even though Meyer’s proposal was not adopted at the “Second” Vatican Council, his intervention nevertheless carried the day theologically just as it is the case that the dissenting justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America can become the basis of jurisprudence accepted as legitimate by law school professors and even by future Supreme Court justices themselves.

The book that contained the combined excerpts of Albert “Cardinal” Meyer’s two inventions on the text of chapter two, paragraph eight, of the schema on Divine Revelation at the “Second” Vatican Council also included a comment made on Meyer’s remarks made by a theology professor in the late-1960s:

Article 8. . . . is an attempt to a widely expressed need for a clear and positive account of what is meant by tradition. The first section points out the total nature of tradition: primarily it means the many-layered yet one presence of the mystery of Christ throughout all the ages; it means the totality of the presence of Christ in this world. . . . Teaching, life and worship are named as the three ways in which tradition is handed on. It has a place not only in the explicitly traditional statements of Church doctrine, but in the unstated—and often unstatable—elements of the whole service of the Christian worship of God and the life of the Church. This is the basis of the final comprehensive formulation of tradition as the “perpetuation,” the constant continuation and making present of everything that the Church is, of everything that it believes. Tradition is identified, and is thus defined, with the being the life of the Church. The danger that lurks in this statement . . . had been point out by Cardinal Meyer in an important speech on 30 September 1964: not everything that exists in the Church must for that reason be a legitimate tradition: in other words, not every tradition that arises in the Church, is a true celebration and keeping of the mystery of Christ. There is a distorting, as well as a legitimate, tradition. . . . Consequently, tradition must not only be considered affirmatively, but also critically; we have Scripture as criterion for this indispensable criticism of tradition, and tradition must therefore always be related back to it and measured by it. . . . It is to be regretted that the suggestion made by the American Cardinal was not, in fact, taken up. . . . On this point Vatican II has unfortunately not make any progress, but has more or less ignored the whole question of the criticism of tradition. There is, in fact, no explicit mention of the possibility of distorting tradition . . . which means that a most important side of the problem of tradition, as shown by the history of the Church—has been overlooked. (As found in an article by Father Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., “Catholic Tradition and Traditions. Michael J. Lacey and Francis Oakley, editors, The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 114-115. (See The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity.)

Yes, according to the likes of apologists for the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium of the conciliar “popes” tradition is “historically conditioned” and “still developing” in order to determine “what is doctrine to be preserved and what is “historically conditioned.”

As one can probably guess, the theology professor who was favorably impressed with "Cardinal" Meyer's interventions was none other than Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger, who has spent the entirety of his sixty-five years, six months, seven days of his priestly life disparaging what he thinks is “past” teaching by claiming that it was “conditioned” by the historical circumstances in which it was formulated:

1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute. 

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes." (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

1990: "The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time

(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itselfIt was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.  


On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.  (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

What was that Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis about how the "new theologians" deny that the true meaning of doctrines may be known and understood with metaphysical certitude?

Let me remind you:

34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

For the likes of men such as the conciliar revolutionaries to be correct, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity not only hid the true meaning of doctrines for over nineteen hundred years, He permitted true popes and the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty true general councils to condemn propositions that have, we are supposed to believe, only recently been "discovered" as having been true. Blasphemous and heretical.

Pope Pius IX and the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council condemned such views on April 24, 1870 (see the Appendix below). a condemnation that was taken up anew by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907. See the Appendices below for another recitation of the Vatican Council's condemnations of everything that the conciliar "popes," including Karol Josef Wotyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio)

Behold a false religion, conciliarism, that is built on an edifice of sophisms that have indeed ruined and wrecked the average Catholic’s understanding of the Holy Faith. This edifice of sophisms has produced such instability and uncertainty in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that Joseph Ratziner/Benedict XVI’s interpretation of the “Second” Vatican Council can be swept away by the next by using the exact same “hermeneutic” that he been used to sweep away the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church in order to justify the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, false ecumenism, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, condemned interpretations of Sacred Scripture according to an unfettered use of the historical-critical method of modern Scriptural exegesis and, of course, ever-changing liturgical rites and pastoral practice. 

As descendants of the original Modernists by way of the "New Theology," the conciliar revolutionaries have been able to build their false religion by overcoming three difficulties that had been identified by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, that stood in their way of all Modernists to advance their errors and heresies:

42. Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.''

The Modernists pass judgment on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived. Finally, the Modernists try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself by sacrilegiously falsifying its origin, character, and rights, and by freely repeating the calumnies of its adversaries. To the entire band of Modernists may be applied those words which Our predecessor sorrowfully wrote: "To bring contempt and odium on the mystic Spouse of Christ, who is the true light, the children of darkness have been wont to cast in her face before the world a stupid calumny, and perverting the meaning and force of things and words, to depict her as the friend of darkness and ignorance, and the enemy of light, science, and progress.''This being so, Venerable Brethren, 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, but their usual course is to charge them with ignorance or obstinacy. When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that renders them redoubtable, they seek to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack. This policy towards Catholics is the more invidious in that they belaud with admiration which knows no bounds the writers who range themselves on their side, hailing their works, exuding novelty in every page, with a chorus of applause. For them the scholarship of a writer is in direct proportion to the recklessness of his attacks on antiquity, and of his efforts to undermine tradition and the ecclesiastical magisterium. When one of their number falls under the condemnations of the Church the rest of them, to the disgust of good Catholics, gather round him, loudly and publicly applaud him, and hold him up in veneration as almost a martyr for truth. The young, excited and confused by all this clamor of praise and abuse, some of them afraid of being branded as ignorant, others ambitious to rank among the learned, and both classes goaded internally by curiosity and pride, not infrequently surrender and give themselves up to Modernism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 2007.)

These two paragraphs describe the modus operandi of each of the conciliar "popes" even though they have used different terms to describe their truly rigid adherence to the "evolution of dogma" that is the foundation of their entire false belief system. Indeed, these two paragraphs are really all one needs to know when reading anything written by the conciliar "popes," especially the three who have been the most prolific: Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict and Bergoglio. Each has disparaged Scholasticism and Tradition, although they have done so in different ways, and they have done so in direct defiance of Catholic teaching, including the following proposition that was condemned by Pope Pius XI in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864:

13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences. -- Ibid. (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)

Go tell that to the likes of Antipope Benedict and "Pope" Francis!

For his part, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II liked to present himself as a "Thomistic Personalist" even though Personalism, which was condemned personally by Pope Pius XII on April 1, 1944 (a condemnation he himself cited and reiterated forcefully in his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951), and even though it had nothing to do with Scholasticism. "Saint John Paul II" used his abilities as actor to mask the fact that he was no Thomist at all and that his concept of "living tradition" was nothing other than Modernism's evolution of dogma by another name.

Consider Mrs. Cornelia Ferreira's documention of how Wojtyla/John Paul II lost the Catholic Faith in his teenaged years:

Like Focolare, other syncretic sects have received, or are in the process of receiving, canonical status, allowing them to masquerade as Catholic religious orders, complete with Statutes, community life, vows and even seminaries. The Neocatechumenate alone, founded by a lay man and ex-nun, has produced 196 priests from its Redemptoris Mater diocesan seminar in Rome and more than 1,000 from its 50 seminaries across the world. Besides the priests being developed by this and other sects, many other clergy live their spirituality. Bishops have already come from their heretical ranks, ordained by John Paul II and favoured with privileged positions, some within the Roman Curia and on Pontifical Councils. It is only logical to assume that they could produce a pope, loyal only to his particular "church" or movement. The ecclesial movements comprises priests, religious, single and married laity--each movement a parallel or an anti-Church within the bosom of the Catholic Church

But we don't have to look to the future for a pope produced by a lay movement. Pope John Paul himself was the "product" and progenitor of dynamic lay groups." In 1940, Karol Wojtyla, aged 19, fell under the sway of a Polish rationalist and self-taught psychologist, Jan Tyranowski, who had "developed his own spirituality" and had the reputation of a "mystic." Quite in line with Deweyite and Jungian adult church principles, Tyranowski preached a gnostic experiential religion; "inner liberation from the faith," i.e., from Catholicism; and "transformation of personality from within," i.e., spiritual growth, through the "friendship" of a community. He also preached a life of service, especially to those of one's community, as the fruit of the "practice and the presence of God." "To bring young people into this same faith"--not Catholicism--he led weekly discussion meetings for young men he recruited, "in which theological questions were argued." (Questioning the Faith is called "critical thinking" today.)

Tyranowski formed the Living Rosary, which shared many of the characteristics of modern lay movements. Its weekly meetings were run by lay people in homes, not by priests in parish halls. By 1943, there were 60 "animates" who reported to Tyranowski. One of these group leaders was Karol Wojtyla.

It is strange that Chiara Lubich also termed her group "the living Rosary." Did she get the idea from Bishop Wojtyla, whom Focolare got to know in Poland? "The Living Rosary as created by Jan Tyranowski consisted of groups of fifteen young men, each of which was led by a more mature youngster who received personal spiritual direction ... from the mystically gifted tailor." The difference between the two "living" Rosaries is that Tyranowoski's groups represented the decades of the Rosary, whilst Lubitch's members were Hail Marys.

The inner transformation taught by Tyranowski is what New Agers today call a change in consciousness or paradigm shift, in which one synthesizes two opposing ideas, such as believing one is a good Catholic even if holding superstitious or occult beliefs. It is similar to [John] Dewey's merger of nature and grace or Jung's "wholeness." It is an occult, gnostic, kabbalistic method of producing a personal shift in values that engenders social transformation. Inner transformation led to religious orders abandoning the supernatural focus of Catholicism for naturalistic and social activism after Vatican II.

Pope John Paul II's acceptance of the gnostic philosophy of the sects is also the product of the theatrical experiences of his youth. Theatre for Karol was "an experience of community"; but more than that, it was a serious training in gnostic transformation by Mieczyslaw Kotlarczyk, director of the Rhapsodic Theatre, which he co-founded with Karol. This Theatre, with its "theme of consciousness," provided Wojtyla's "initiation to phenomenology." Kotlarczyk, who lived for some time in the Wojtyla home, tutored Karol in his method from the time Karol was sixteen until he joined the seminary six years later. He created a "theater of the inner world" to present "universal truths and universal moral values, which . . . offered the world the possibility of authentic transformation." Plot, costumes and props were not important. Instead, speech--the "word"--was his focus, the goal being to use it to transform the consciousness of the audience (and actor). Hence Kotlarczyk, insisted on every word being pronounced just so.

That this was a training in the kabbalistic, occult use of words became clear when Kotlarczyk's book, The Art of the Living Word: Diction, Expression, Magic, was published in 1975 by the Papal Gregorian University in Rome. Cardinal Wojtyla penned the preface to this book in which Kotlarczyk listed the sources of his ideas. The included the writings of several occultists and theosophists, amongst them some of the foremost kabbalists and occultists of modern times: Russian Mason Helena Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society and the New Age Movement; French occultist Eliphas Levi (who influenced Blavatsky, Albert Pike, Grand Commander of Scottish Rite Masonry, and sorcerer Aleister Crowley, long-time head of the high Masonic Ordo Templi Orientis or OTO); and Rudolph Steiner. Illuminatus, Rosicrucian, theosophist, OTO member, Communist and founder of the Anthroposophical Society and Waldorf Schools. Theosophy had been condemned by the Church in 1919, the Holy Office stating one could not "read [theosophists'] books, daily papers, journals and writings.

Kotlarczyk believed he was an "archpriest of drama," his living word method being a religion and "vocation," with the actor as priest. As with theosophists who use the title "Master" for highly evolved humans who guide humanist, he called himself "Master of the Word." He saw theater "as ritual" and "understood the liturgical character of theatrical action, . .. offering the possibility of entering into a new dimension. . . ." Theater could be "a way of perfection" if "the word" had absolute priority" over "externals and spectacles."

Compare Kotlarczyk's ideas with Anthroposophy or "Christian Illuminism," which is a Luciferian initiation" that forms the enlightened or "deified" man with occult abilities. Anthroposophy teaches that occult knowledge, or the "inner meaning" of realities can be obtained through a "disciplined use of the arts, words, colour, music and eurhythmic ("universal harmony"), a way of dance that Steiner (1861-1925) created to express the inner meanings of sound. The explosion in the Church today of theatrics, "creative liturgy," and eurhthmic-style"liturgical dance" (even at Papal Masses) as an experiential means of teaching the Faith, denotes both a Jungian and Steinerian influence. (Steiner's techniques are actually a "subversive" form of hypnosis applied to religious, political and educational groups to make them tools for effecting the Masonic Universal Republic. Destroying rational thought, they produce the "false idealist" and "soft peacemonger" who lives by feelings, finds goodness and beauty in ugliness and evil, does not criticized error, gives up his personality, and blends with another. He is then easily controlled and even obsessed.)

Karol and his friends committed themselves to "the dramatic exploration of the interior life" under Kotlarczyk. Amongst his man roles, Karol was the "Seer John" in Steiner's arrangement of the Apocalypse. Other esoteric works in which he acted or which had "significance in his spiritual formation" included productions by Juliusz Slowacki (1809-49) and Adam Mickiewicz (1789-1855). Slowacki was an evolutionist and reincarnationalist who believed Poland's political sufferings were "karma." Mickiewicz was a kabbalist and Martinist (a form of occultism). Both men subscribed to Polish Messianism, which was intertwined with Jewish Messianism and occultism. Their ideas were incorporated into other plays. To "rebuke" Pius IX, who did not support Polish nationalism and the Masonic revolution in Italy, Slowacki also composed a poem about a future "Slavic Pope" who would head a "reformed papacy," and would be tough, but "a brother of the people." As Pope John Paul II, Karol would later apply this poem to himself.

The following comment by Father Wojtyla (under a pseudonym) in 1958 shows how the Rhapsodic Theatre solidified his rejection of individualism in favour of the one mind enforced in the new ecclesial sects:

This theater ... defends the young actors against developing a destructive individualism, because it will not let them impose on the text anything of their own; it gives them inner discipline. A group of people, collectively, somehow unanimously, subordinated to the great poetic word, evoke ethical associations; this solidarity of people in the word reveals particularly strongly and accentuates the reverence that is the point of departure of the rhapsodists' word and the secret of their style.

After his ordination, Father Wojtyla created his own youth group, "Little Family," whose members called him "Uncle." Little Family became the core of a larger community known as Srodowisko or "milieu," which he led until elected Pope. The seeds for World Youth Day lay in the co-ed hiking across Poland, sleeping in barns, discussing anything, singing, praying, and attending his outdoor Masses. His good friend, Fr. Mieczyslaw Malinski, another Tyranowski graduate, admiringly referred to him as "Wojtyla the revolutionary," who shocked "the entire Cracow diocese." He was also the type of priest Focolare likes, "wholly devoid of clericalism." Tyranowski's training taught him to highly value the laity, and he tested his philosophical ideas on Srodowisko friends and his Lublin University doctoral students, encouraging a "mutual exchange" of ideas, happy to learn from them.

Having gone from lay leader to Pope, it is no surprise that John Paul became the greatest promoter and protector of the lay movements, starting with gaining them official recognition at Vatican II. Furthermore, Focolare, Neocatechumenal Way, Communion and Liberation and Light-Life (for Oasis) were well-established in Communist Poland, where Karol Wojtyla got to know them; and he championed them since his days as Archbishop of Cracow. He saw the movements as crucial "for achieving his vision": they are "privileged channels for the formation and promotion of an active laity ..." The following statement he made to Communion and Liberation in 1979 encapsulates the continuity of thought between his Tyranowski days and the modern sects: "the true liberation of man comes about, therefore, in the experience of ecclesial  communion. . . ."

Pope John Paul's Apostolic Letter for the Year of the Eucharist (October 2004-October 2005) shows that Vatican II was a bridge for this continuity. Citing Vatican II's Lumen Gentium, Pope John Paul says the Eucharist is a sign and instrument of "the unity of the whole human race"--i.e., it is meant to bring about the pantheistic Masonic one-world community! It should inspire Christians to "become promoters [sic] of dialogue and communion," and communities to "building a more just and fraternal society." (Cornelia Ferreira and John Vennari, World Youth Day: From Catholicism to Counterchurch, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Canisius Books, 2005, pp. 126-133.  One has to ignore the references to "Pope John Paul II." Readers of this site who put adherence to truth all else understood that no one can disparage a true pope or to put into question anything that he inserts into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. See Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton Calls Out Tricks of Shoddy Minimism.)

There is a purpose to all of this, and it is to demonstrate that Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger Benedict and Bergoglio have been as one in rejecting Scholastiscism, differing only in their approaches to doing so.

Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, a student of the Lubin School of Personalism  that would give rise to the hideous "theology of the body," believed himself to be a Thomist, but he was no such thing. As a Modernist by way of the "new theology," Wojtyla/John Paul II believed that he was "rediscovering" the "true" meaning of the writing and the Scholastic Method of Saint Thomas Aquins that had been "corrupted" by others who followed him. Although his two successors in the current line of antipopes each have expressed a visceral disapproval of Saint Thomas Aquinas "clarity" and of any kind of Scholasticism, they are united with "Saint John Paul II" in believing that any discussion of Scholasticism is separate from that of Saint Thomas Aquinas even though our true popes have told us otherwise:

Innocent VI: "The teaching of this Doctor above all others, with the exception of Canon Law, has precision in terminology, propriety of expression, truth of judgment: so that never is one who has held it been found to have deviated from the path of truth."

Pius V: "It was wrought by the providence of Almighty God that by the force and truth of the Angelic Doctor's teaching, by which he illumined the Apostolic Church with the refutation of innumerable errors, that the many heresies which have arisen after his canonization have been confounded, overthrown and dispersed. This has been made evident both earlier and recently in the sacred decrees of the Council of Trent."

Clement VIII to the Neapolitans: "Devoutly and wisely are you thinking of adopting a new patron of your city, your fellow citizen, the Angelic interpreter of the Divine Will, splendid in the sanctity of his life and by his miracles, Thomas Aquinas, since indeed is this honor owed with the greatest justification to his virtues joined to his admirable doctrine. Indeed, witness to his doctrine is the great number of books which he composed, in a very brief time, in almost every class of learning, with a matchless arrangement and wondrous clearness, without any error whatsoever."

Paul V: "We greatly rejoice in the Lord that honor and veneration are increasing daily for the most splendid champion of the Catholic Faith, blessed Thomas Aquinas, by the shield of whose writings the Church Militant successfully parries the spears of the heretics.

And Leo XIII, at once embracing hand surpassing all of the praises of his predecessors, says of him: "Distinguishing reason from Faith, as is proper, but nevertheless combining the two in a friendly alliance, he both preserved the rights of each and had regard for the dignity of both., in such a way too that reason, carried on the wings of Thomas to the highest human limit, now almost cannot rise any higher, and faith almost cannot expect more or stronger helps from reason than it has already obtained through Thomas."

--And again, presenting St. Thomas to Catholics as a model and patron in various sciences, he says: "In him are all the illustrious ornaments of mind and character by which he rightly calls others to the imitation of himself: the richest doctrine, incorrupt, fittingly arranged; obedience to the Faith, and a marvelous consonance with the truths divinely handed down; integrity of life with the splendor of the greatest virtues." (Readings from the Dominican Breviary (II Nocturn) for the feast of the Patronage of Saint Thomas Aquinas, November 13.)

But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the bull "In Ordine;" Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull "Pretiosus," and others bear witness that the universal Church borrows luster from his admirable teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull "Mirabilis" that heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others, such as Clement XII in the bull "Verbo Dei," affirm that most fruitful blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church, and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: "It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same."[35] Innocent XII, followed the example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6, 1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: "His teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error."[36]

22. The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the "Summa" of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.

23. A last triumph was reserved for this incomparable man -- namely, to compel the homage, praise, and admiration of even the very enemies of the Catholic name. For it has come to light that there were not lacking among the leaders of heretical sects some who openly declared that, if the teaching of Thomas Aquinas were only taken away, they could easily battle with all Catholic teachers, gain the victory, and abolish the Church.[37] A vain hope, indeed, but no vain testimony. (Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879.)

It is precisely because Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II sought to "reinterpret" the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas in accordance with the Personalism taught at Lublin University even after it had been condemned by Pope Pius XII on April 1, 1944, that he became a chief apologist in defense of the inversion of the ends proper to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that had been advanced by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sickest before him, thus making it more possible for the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to become an apologist for fornicators, adulterers and sodomites in the name of of "accompanying them." One embarks upon an irreversible course of constant "revisions" of Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals once the moral certitude provided by Saint Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism is removed. It has been and remains essential for the conciliar revolutionaries to "reinterpret" and/or dismiss and disparage the certitude of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Scholasticism in order to justify their own "search for truth" as it is said to "spring up" from the inner wellsprings of human consciousness. Moral norms must be "adjusted" in accord with the "real life" situations and not some supposedly "sterile formalism" that does not reach into the hearts of men and is thus said to be opposed to "mercy."

Noting that Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict and Bergoglio have employed different methods and have used different language to disparage Scholasticism, each can trace their love of the "new theology's" "search for truth" according to the circumstances of the moment to several common sources, one of the chief being the work of the late Father Hans Urs von Balthsar, who co-founded the "lay movement" called Communion and Liberation with none other than such notable heretics as Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger, Henri du Lubac and Karl Lehman.

As has been noted in many other articles, Father Hans Urs von Balthasar was a Hegelian, meaning that he adapted the ue of the Eighteenth Century German "philospher" named Georg Hegel for use in "discovering" truth. Like Hegel, von Balthasar believed every proposition, including dogmas proclaimed solemnly by the infallible authority of Holy Mother Church, contained within itself the seeds of its own contradiction. 

Contradicting both Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas, Hegel believed that contraries could be true. In other words, he did not believe in the principle of non-contradiction (that two contrary statements cannot be true simultaneously; to wit, the statement that is raining now can be as true as it is not raining now), believing that "truth" evolves as a result of a "synthesis" arising from one proposition and its inherent contradictions. Hegel thus used the same methodology to study theology as Karl Marx had used to assert that the ultimate end of man was the stage of "ideal communism" wherein all class struggle would end once all men had an equitable share of the world's goods, thus making it possibe for the state would wither away and die and for history to end and for "man" to begin. 

Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II thought so highly of von Balthasar, whom he considered to be one of his mentors, that he named him to the conciliar "college of cardinals" on May 29, 1988, four weeks to the day before his death on June 26, 1988, which came four days before he woud have recevied the conciliar red hat, and Ratzinger/Benedict told us that his mentor, the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, spent his entire life in a "search" for truth:

“Hans Urs von Balthasar, the Pope writes, ‘was a theologian who put his work at the service of the Church,’ because he was convinced that theology is useful only within the context of Catholic practice. ‘I can testify that his life was an authentic search for truth," the Pope adds. Pope Benedict says that he hopes the 100th-anniversary observance will stimulate a revival of interest in the work of von Balthasar, recalling Henri de Lubac's claim that the Swiss theologian was "the most cultured man of our century.’ The Lateran University seminar is co-sponsored by Communio, the international theological journal that was founded by von Balthasar in cooperation with theologians such as Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) and Angelo Scola (now the Patriarch of Venice). Participants in the weekend's discussions include Cardinal Scola, Cardinal James Stafford, and Cardinal Marc Ouellet.” (Catholic World, October 7, 2005.)

There is frequently the need to search for the truth of various historical facts. There is no need to "search" for the truths of the Catholic Faith, truths that indeed were put into question by Father Hans Urs von Balthasar by his belief that the words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ contained "paradoxes" and "contradictions" that had to be re-examined in light of the "changing circumstances" in which "modern man" finds himself. Von Balthasar believed that "only love is credible," meaning that precise dogmatic formulations are secondary, if even at all necessary, to serving God as members of the Catholic Church. Hans Urs von Balthasar, whose belief in the heresy of "universal salvation" was critiqued by Father Regis Scanlon, O.F.M.., Cap., in The Inflated Reputation of Hans Urs von Balthasar, was "praised" by the then "Pope Benedict XVI" for his "search" for dogmatic truth on points that have been defined solemnly by the Catholic Church that are not matters of debate.

Those outside of the Catholic Faith may have to search for the truth as they are led in their lives by the promptings of God the Holy Ghost. Those who have strayed from the Faith may have to do so after having abandoned the maternal bosom of Holy Mother Church, which had provided them with sure teaching and the sacramental graces to live in accord with it. A believing Catholic, whether a bishop or a priest or a consecrated member of a religious community, does not have to "search" for any of the truths of Divine Revelation as these truths dwell in Holy Mother Church and are readily accessible. Indeed, a believing Catholic has the solemn duty to proclaim the truth to all nonbelievers as his prays and works for their unconditional conversion to the true Faith, recognizing that it is a sin to leave unbeliever in his unbelief without making some kind of effort to seek his conversion.

Antipope Emeritus Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI doesn't even believe this. He believes that it is possible for the Jews, for example, to have a "parallel" reading of the Old Testament that does not point unequivocally to the First Coming in time of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.  Ratzinger/Benedict learned this directly from Hans Urs von Balthasar, and it is not wonder, therefore, that he could have made the following statements about Judaism and Catholicisims:

In its work, the Biblical Commission could not ignore the contemporary context, where the shock of the Shoah has put the whole question under a new light. Two main problems are posed: Can Christians, after all that has happened, still claim in good conscience to be the legitimate heirs of Israel's Bible? Have they the right to propose a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they not instead, respectfully and humbly, renounce any claim that, in the light of what has happened, must look like a usurpation? The second question follows from the first: In its presentation of the Jews and the Jewish people, has not the New Testament itself contributed to creating a hostility towards the Jewish people that provided a support for the ideology of those who wished to destroy Israel? The Commission set about addressing those two questions. It is clear that a Christian rejection of the Old Testament would not only put an end to Christianity itself as indicated above, but, in addition, would prevent the fostering of positive relations between Christians and Jews, precisely because they would lack common ground. In the light of what has happened, what ought to emerge now is a new respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. On this subject, the Document says two things. First it declares that “the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures of the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading, which developed in parallel fashion” (no. 22). It adds that Christians can learn a great deal from a Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in return, Christians may hope that Jews can profit from Christian exegetical research (ibid.). I think this analysis will prove useful for the pursuit of Judeo-Christian dialogue, as well as for the interior formation of Christian consciousness. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Preface to The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible.)

It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.” (Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 209.)

To the religious leaders present this afternoon, I wish to say that the particular contribution of religions to the quest for peace lies primarily in the wholehearted, united search for God.  Ours is the task of proclaiming and witnessing that the Almighty is present and knowable even when he seems hidden from our sight, that he acts in our world for our good, and that a society’s future is marked with hope when it resonates in harmony with his divine order.  It is God’s dynamic presence that draws hearts together and ensures unity.  In fact, the ultimate foundation of unity among persons lies in the perfect oneness and universality of God, who created man and woman in his image and likeness in order to draw us into his own divine life so that all may be one. (Courtesy visit to the President of the State of Israel at the presidential palace in Jerusalem, May 11, 2009.)

Joseph Ratzinger would have us believe that God has revealed Himself to us in an oblique manner, one that is not clear and certain. This is, of course, utter apostasy from a man who denies the very nature of dogmatic truth by asserting that past dogmatic decrees and papal pronouncements are conditioned by the circumstances in which they were made, thus making a mockery of the infallible guidance and protection of God the Holy Ghost. It is no wonder, of course, that Ratzinger/Benedict must live in alternative universe where it is necessary to spend one's live in a vast array of needless "searches."

Yes, of course, theologians and other scholars may have delve into various aspects of the inexhaustible treasures of the Holy Faith, doing so at all times under the watchful eye and direction of Holy Mother Church. To understand the Faith more deeply and to draw out from Its treasures deeper understandings that in no way contradict what the Church has taught from time immemorial is a work in behalf of souls that is indeed sanctioned by God. It is not necessary, however, to search for what God has revealed or the path that He has marked out for the unity of all men as members of the Catholic Church.

That the conciliar "pontiffs," who have claimed to have held the office of Supreme Pastor, do not preach simply and clearly that Catholicism and Catholicism alone is the one and only means of human salvation and the one and only means of personal and social order is a very strong testimony to the nature of the apostasy that is upon us. Billions of souls on the face of this earth have been left to wander aimlessly in life because the conciliar church and its "pontiffs" and its "bishops" and its priests/presbyters do not believe that they have a solemn duty to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of all non-Catholics to the true Faith.

For his part, Jorge Mario Bergoglio's rejection of the method used by the Fathers of the Council of Trent and the [First] Vatican Council to issue solemn decrees and to anthematize condemned propositions advanced by heretics is premised upon his own belief that Saint Thomas Aquinas's teaching was "corrupted" by those who lived after him, uniting him in this regard with "Saint John Paul II," but this is really just an excuse to justify moral relativism as the foundation of what is alleged to be a "pastroral approach" to "accompany" those said to be living on the "existential peripheries." In order words, there are not truly fixed moral laws by which sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments can be condemned as one must "understand" the subjective situations of those who believe that it is their "duty" to live in ways that are not in accord with an unrealistic "ideal" that may be hard for them to attain except by a "gradualness" that leaves them content to die in their sins, which must be celebrated as expressions of "love."  

One will see in the following excerpt from a speech Jorge Mario “Cardinal” Bergoglio gave in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 2012 upon the release of Father Luis Guissani's The Attraction of Jesus that was republished in yet another Communion and Liberation magazine, Traces, almost every single one of the themes that he has used as “Pope Francis” in the past forty-six months:

The book presented today, El atractivo de Jesucristo, is not a theological treatise, it is a dialogue of friendship; these are table conversations between Father Guissani and his disciples. It is not a book for intellectuals, but for people who are men and women. It is the description of that initial experience, which I shall refer to later on, of wonder which arises in dialogue about daily experience that is provoked and fascinated by the exceptionally human and divine presence and gaze of Jesus Christ. It is the story of a personal relationship–intense, mysterious, and concrete at the same time–of an impassioned and intelligent affection for the person of Jesus, and this enables Fr. Giussani to come to the threshold, as it were, of Mystery, to speak familiarly and intimately with Mystery.

Everything in our life, today just as in Jesus’ time, begins with an encounter. An encounter with this Man, the carpenter of Nazareth, a man like all men and yet different. The first ones, John, Andrew, and Simon, felt themselves to be looked at into their very depths, read in their innermost being, and in them sprang forth a surprise, a wonder that instantly made them feel bound to Him, made them feel different.

When Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love Me?”, “his ‘Yes’ was not the result of an effort of will, it was not the fruit of a ‘decision’ made by the young man Simon: it was the emergence, the coming to the surface of an entire vein of tenderness and adherence that made sense because of the esteem he had for Him–therefore an act of reason;” it was a reasonable act, “which is why he couldn’t not say ‘Yes.’”

We cannot understand this dynamic of encounter which brings forth wonder and adherence if it has not been triggered–forgive me the use of this word–by mercy. Only someone who has encountered mercy, who has been caressed by the tenderness of mercy, is happy and comfortable with the Lord. I beg the theologians who are present not to turn me in to the Sant’Uffizio or to the Inquisition; however, forcing things a bit, I dare to say that the privileged locus of the encounter is the caress of the mercy of Jesus Christ on my sin.

In front of this merciful embrace–and I continue along the lines of Giussani’s thought–we feel a real desire to respond, to change, to correspond; a new morality arises. We posit the ethical problem, an ethics which is born of the encounter, of this encounter which we have described up to now. Christian morality is not a titanic effort of the will, the effort of someone who decides to be consistent and succeeds, a solitary challenge in the face of the world. No. Christian morality is simply a response. It is the heartfelt response to a surprising, unforeseeable, “unjust” mercy (I shall return to this adjective). The surprising, unforeseeable, “unjust” mercy, using purely human criteria, of one who knows me, knows my betrayals and loves me just the same, appreciates me, embraces me, calls me again, hopes in me, and expects from me. This is why the Christian conception of morality is a revolution; it is not a never falling down but an always getting up again. (The Attraction of the Cardinal.)

It’s all there, isn’t it, including Bergoglio’s making light of heresy and his disdain for what he though was the “conservative” nature of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s misnamed Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is located on the Via Uffizio just across the southeast perimeters of the Bernini Columns that surround much of Saint Peter’s Square in Vatican City.

The only thing “new” about what “Pope Francis” has said and done since Wednesday, March 13, 2013, is that he has proselytizing, if I can use that word, on a universal stage what he had said and done throughout his entire heresy-filled career as lay Jesuit revolutionary.

Indeed, “Cardinal” Bergoglio’s praise of Father Luigi Guissani’s belief system is the very essence of the Modernist teaching that man's belief in God and His Divine Son spring forth from an inner impulse and not by virtue of having had the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity infused into his soul in the Sacrament of Baptism. Pope Saint Pius X dissected this heresy very well in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

7. However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernists: the positive part consists in what they call vital immanence. Thus they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation. But when natural theology has been destroyed, and the road to revelation closed by the rejection of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside of man himself. It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. In this way is formulated the principle of religious immanence. Moreover, the first actuation, so to speak, of every vital phenomenon -- and religion, as noted above, belongs to this category -- is due to a certain need or impulsion; but speaking more particularly of life, it has its origin in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sense. Therefore, as God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and foundation of all religion, must consist in a certain interior sense, originating in a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favorable circumstances. cannot of itself appertain to the domain of consciousness, but is first latent beneath consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its root lies hidden and undetected.

It may perhaps be asked how it is that this need of the divine which man experiences within himself resolves itself into religion? To this question the Modernist reply would be as follows: Science and history are confined within two boundaries, the one external, namely, the visible world, the other internal, which is consciousness. When one or other of these limits has been reached, there can be no further progress, for beyond is the unknowable. In presence of this unknowable, whether it is outside man and beyond the visible world of nature, or lies hidden within the subconsciousness, the need of the divine in a soul which is prone to religion excites -- according to the principles of Fideism, without any previous advertence of the mind -- a certain special sense, and this sense possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the divine reality itself, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sense to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this is what they hold to be the beginning of religion.

8. But we have not yet reached the end of their philosophizing, or, to speak more accurately, of their folly. Modernists find in this sense not only faith, but in and with faith, as they understand it, they affirm that there is also to be found revelation. For, indeed, what more is needed to constitute a revelation? Is not that religious sense which is perceptible in the conscience, revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is it not God Himself manifesting Himself, indistinctly, it is true, in this same religious sense, to the soul? And they add: Since God is both the object and the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and from God, that is to say, God is both the Revealer and the Revealed. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)


This is not a minor point at all. It is quite essential to the entire belief system of concilairism. Luis Mario Bergoglio was only repeating what he had been taught by the late Father Luigi Guissani, a belief about man's "inner sense" and "relation to God" that has been propagated throughout the Joseph Ratzinger's entire priesthood, which is why it has been necessary for the conciliar revolutionaries to jettison Scholasticism for the “new theology,” whose tenets were condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, and to make it appear as though there is a dichotomy between the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas and its “corruption” by the Scholastic scholars who influenced the proceedings of the Councils of Trent and the Vatican. 

Believing in what Wojtyla/John Paul II called “living tradition” or what Ratzinger/Benedict called the “hermeneutic of continuity,” the conciliar revolutionaries have had to overthrow the bastion of Scholasticism that has stood in their way up until the time of the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958.

Indeed, the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, citing his own mentor, Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, said that it was a necessary task to continue the “demolitions of the bastions” that have stood in the way of knowing the “Person” of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

We are eyewitnesses to the fulfillment of the prophetic warning that had been given to the bishops of Holy Mother Church by Pope Pius VIII in his one and only encyclical letter, Traditii Humiliate Nostrae, May 24, 1829:

We open Our heart with joy to you, venerable brothers, whom God has given to Us as helpers in the conduct of so great an administration. We are pleased to let you know the intimate sentiments of Our will. We also think it helpful to communicate those things from which the Christian cause may benefit. For the duty of Our office is not only to feed, rule, and direct the lambs, namely the Christian people, but also the sheep, that is the clergy.

2. We rejoice and praise Christ, who raised up shepherds for the safekeeping of His flock. These shepherds vigilantly lead their flocks so as not to lose even one of those they have received from the Father. For We know well, venerable brothers, your unshakeable faith, your zeal for religion, your sanctity of life, and your singular prudence. Co-workers such as you make Us happy and confident. This pleasant situation encourages Us when We fear because of the great responsibility of Our office, and it refreshes and strengthens Us when We feel overwhelmed by so many serious concerns. We shall not detain you with a long sermon to remind you what things are required to perform sacred duties well, what the canons prescribe lest anyone depart from vigilance over his flock, and what attention ought to be given in preparing and accepting ministers. Rather We call upon God the Savior that He may protect you with His omnipresent divinity and bless your activities and endeavors with happy success.

3. Although God may console Us with you, We are nonetheless sad. This is due to the numberless errors and the teachings of perverse doctrines which, no longer secretly and clandestinely but openly and vigorously, attack the Catholic faith. You know how evil men have raised the standard of revolt against religion through philosophy (of which they proclaim themselves doctors) and through empty fallacies devised according to natural reason. In the first place, the Roman See is assailed and the bonds of unity are, every day, being severed. The authority of the Church is weakened and the protectors of things sacred are snatched away and held in contempt. The holy precepts are despised, the celebration of divine offices is ridiculed, and the worship of God is cursed by the sinner.[1] All things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the superstitions of priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel.[2] With tears We say: "Truly they have conspired against the Lord and against His Christ." Truly the impious have said: "Raze it, raze it down to its foundations."[3]

4. Among these heresies belongs that foul contrivance of the sophists of this age who do not admit any difference among the different professions of faith and who think that the portal of eternal salvation opens for all from any religion. They, therefore, label with the stigma of levity and stupidity those who, having abandoned the religion which they learned, embrace another of any kind, even Catholicism. This is certainly a monstrous impiety which assigns the same praise and the mark of the just and upright man to truth and to error, to virtue and to vice, to goodness and to turpitude. Indeed this deadly idea concerning the lack of difference among religions is refuted even by the light of natural reason. We are assured of this because the various religions do not often agree among themselves. If one is true, the other must be false; there can be no society of darkness with light. Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.[4] Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.[5] Indeed, no other name than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved.[6] He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned.[7]

5. We must also be wary of those who publish the Bible with new interpretations contrary to the Church's laws. They skillfully distort the meaning by their own interpretation. They print the Bibles in the vernacular and, absorbing an incredible expense, offer them free even to the uneducated. Furthermore, the Bibles are rarely without perverse little inserts to insure that the reader imbibes their lethal poison instead of the saving water of salvation. Long ago the Apostolic See warned about this serious hazard to the faith and drew up a list of the authors of these pernicious notions. The rules of this Index were published by the Council of Trent;[8] the ordinance required that translations of the Bible into the vernacular not be permitted without the approval of the Apostolic See and further required that they be published with commentaries from the Fathers. The sacred Synod of Trent had decreed[9] in order to restrain impudent characters, that no one, relying on his own prudence in matters of faith and of conduct which concerns Christian doctrine, might twist the sacred Scriptures to his own opinion, or to an opinion contrary to that of the Church or the popes. Though such machinations against the Catholic faith had been assailed long ago by these canonical proscriptions, Our recent predecessors made a special effort to check these spreading evils.[10] With these arms may you too strive to fight the battles of the Lord which endanger the sacred teachings, lest this deadly virus spread in your flock.

6. When this corruption has been abolished, then eradicate those secret societies of factious men who, completely opposed to God and to princes, are wholly dedicated to bringing about the fall of the Church, the destruction of kingdoms, and disorder in the whole world. Having cast off the restraints of true religion, they prepare the way for shameful crimes. Indeed, because they concealed their societies, they aroused suspicion of their evil intent. Afterwards this evil intention broke forth, about to assail the sacred and the civil orders. Hence the supreme pontiffs, Our predecessors, Clement XII, Benedict XIV, Pius VII, Leo XII,[11] repeatedly condemned with anathema that kind of secret society. Our predecessors condemned them in apostolic letters; We confirm those commands and order that they be observed exactly. In this matter We shall be diligent lest the Church and the state suffer harm from the machinations of such sects. With your help We strenuously take up the mission of destroying the strongholds which the putrid impiety of evil men sets up.

7. We want you to know of another secret society organized not so long ago for the corruption of young people who are taught in the gymnasia and the lycea. Its cunning purpose is to engage evil teachers to lead the students along the paths of Baal by teaching them un-Christian doctrines. The perpetrators know well that the students' minds and morals are molded by the precepts of the teachers. Its influence is already so persuasive that all fear of religion has been lost, all discipline of morals has been abandoned, the sanctity of pure doctrine has been contested, and the rights of the sacred and of the civil powers have been trampled upon. Nor are they ashamed of any disgraceful crime OT error. We can truly say with Leo the Great that for them "Law is prevarication; religion, the devil; sacrifice, disgrace.'[12] Drive these evils from your dioceses. Strive to assign not only learned, but also good men to train our youth. (Pope Pius VIII, Traditii Humiliatae Nostrae, May 24, 1829.)


Pope Pius VIII’s description of how the bishops of his day at the end of the third decade of the Nineteenth Century is exact opposite of what Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants his own “bishops” to be, and this is because he, Bergoglio, belongs to the category of evil forces that Pope Pius VIII warned his bishops to remove from their very midst. Read the passages above over and over again. You will see how prophetic they are in light of today’s incredible circumstances.  

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s discussion of a “decadent” Scholasticism, therefore, is just part and parcel of his method to make various of Holy Mother Church’s Fathers and Doctors, including the Angelic Doctor himself, Saint Thomas Aquinas, appear as “witnesses” in behalf of his own agenda of apostasy. To do this, though, he must ignore the papal praise of the Scholastic method cited above, and to ignore the following reaffirmation by Pope Pius XI of the true teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas, which is a rebuke to the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and works of his such as Amoris Laetitia:

25. Inasmuch, therefore, as We see the majority of young men, caught in the quicksands of passion, rapidly jettisoning holy purity and abandoning themselves to sensual pleasures, We instantly exhort you, Venerable Brethren, to propagate everywhere, and particularly among seminarians, the society of the Angelic Militia founded under the patronage of Thomas for the preservation and maintenance of holy chastity and We confirm the privileges of pontifical indulgences heaped upon it by Benedict XIII and others of Our Predecessors. And that the Faithful may be persuaded the more eagerly to enroll in this Militia, We grant members of it the privilege of wearing instead of a cord a medal round the neck impressed on the obverse with a picture of St. Thomas and the angels surrounding him with a girdle and on the reverse a picture of Our Lady, Queen of the Most Holy Rosary.

26. But inasmuch as St. Thomas has been duly proclaimed patron of all Catholic schools because he marvelously combined both forms of wisdom, the rational and the divinely inspired, because he had recourse to prayer and fasting to solve the most difficult problems, because he used the image of Christ crucified in place of all books, let him be a model also for seminarians, so that they may learn how to pursue their studies to the best advantage and with the greatest profit to themselves. Members of religious communities should look upon the life of St. Thomas as upon a mirror; he refused even the highest dignities offered to him in order to live in the practice of the most perfect obedience and to die in the sanctity of his profession. Let all the Faithful of Christ take the Angelic Doctor as a model of devotion to the august Queen of Heaven, for it was his custom often to repeat the "Hail Mary" and to inscribe the sweet Name upon his pages, and let them ask the Doctor of the Eucharist himself to inspire them with love for the divine Sacrament. Priests above all will be zealous in so doing, as is only proper. "For Thomas was accustomed, unless prevented by illness, to say Mass daily and heard another Mass said by his socius or some other friar which he very often served," declares the careful historian of his life. But could anyone find words to express the spiritual fervor with which he said Mass himself, the anxious care with which he made his preparation, the thanksgivings he offered to the divine Majesty after he had said it?

27. Again, if we are to avoid the errors which are the source and fountain-head of all the miseries of our time, the teaching of Aquinas must be adhered to more religiously than ever. For Thomas refutes the theories propounded by Modernists in every sphere, in philosophy, by protecting, as We have reminded you, the force and power of the human mind and by demonstrating the existence of God by the most cogent arguments; in dogmatic theology, by distinguishing the supernatural from the natural order and explaining the reasons for belief and the dogmas themselves; in theology, by showing that the articles of faith are not based upon mere opinion but upon truth and therefore cannot possibly change; in exegesis, by transmitting the true conception of divine inspiration; in the science of morals, in sociology and law, by laying down sound principles of legal and social, commutative and distributive, justice and explaining the relations between justice and charity; in the theory of asceticism, by his precepts concerning the perfection of the Christian life and his confutation of the enemies of the religious orders in his own day. Lastly, against the much vaunted liberty of the human reason and its independence in regard to God he asserts the rights of primary Truth and the authority over us of the Supreme Master. It is therefore clear why Modernists are so amply justified in fearing no Doctor of the Church so much as Thomas Aquinas.

28. Accordingly, just as it was said to the Egyptians of old in time of famine: "Go to Joseph," so that they should receive a supply of corn from him to nourish their bodies, so We now say to all such as are desirous of the truth: "Go to Thomas," and ask him to give you from his ample store the food of substantial doctrine wherewith to nourish your souls unto eternal life. Evidence that such food is ready to hand and accessible to all men was given on oath at the hearing of the case for the canonization of Thomas himself, in the following words: "Innumerable secular and religious masters flourished under the lucid and limpid teaching of this Doctor, because his method was concise, clear and easily followed . . . even laymen and persons of little instruction are eager to possess his writings."

29. We desire those especially who are engaged in teaching the higher studies in seminaries sedulously to observe and inviolably to maintain the decrees of Our Predecessors, more particularly those of Leo XIII (the Encyclical Aeterni Patris), and Pius X (the Motu Proprio Doctoris Angelici) and the instructions We Ourselves issued last year. Let them be persuaded that they will discharge their duty and fulfill Our expectation when, after long and diligent perusal of his writings, they begin to feel an intense devotion for the Doctor Aquinas and by their exposition of him succeed in inspiring their pupils with like fervor and train them to kindle a similar zeal in others.

30. We desire that lovers of St. Thomas-and all sons of the Church who devote themselves to higher studies should be so-be incited by an honorable rivalry in a just and proper freedom which is the life-blood of studies, but let no spirit of malevolent disparagement prevail among them, for any such, so far from helping truth, serves only to loosen the bonds of charity. Let everyone therefore inviolably observe the prescription contained in the Code of Canon Law that "teachers shall deal with the studies of mental philosophy and theology and the education of their pupils in such sciences according to the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor and religiously adhere thereto"; and may they conform to this rule so faithfully as to be able to describe him in very truth as their master. Let none require from another more than the Church, the mistress and mother of all, requires from each: and in questions, which in Catholic schools are matter of controversy between the most reputable authorities, let none be prevented from adhering to whatever opinion seems to him the more probable.

31. Therefore, as it behooves the whole of Christendom worthily to celebrate this centenary-because in honoring St. Thomas something greater is involved than the reputation of St. Thomas and that is the authority of the teaching Church-We desire that such celebration shall take place throughout the world from the 18th July until the end of next year wherever seminarians are in regular course of instruction, that is to say not only among the Preaching Friars, an Order which, in the words of Benedict XV, "must be praised, not so much for having been the family of the Angelic Doctor, as for having never afterwards departed so much as a hair's breadth from his teaching" (Acta Ap. Sedis, viii, 1916, p. 397), but among other religious communities also, and in all seminaries and Catholic colleges and schools to which he has been appointed for heavenly patron. It is only proper that this Eternal City in which Aquinas was once master of the Sacred Palace should take the lead in holding such celebrations and that the Pontifical Angelical College, where St. Thomas may be said to be at home, and the other academies in Rome for the education of priests set the example in these holy rejoicings. (Pope Pius XI, Studiorum Decem, June 29, 1943.)

Although Jorge Mario Bergoglio might fool many of those Catholics who actually take the time to read what he says—and that number is not as great as many people think it is as most Catholics are concerned about their own lives and the events of the world and have no interest in what Jorge says on a daily basis unless it makes headlines, those who have the true Faith must recognize an apostate when they see one and resolve to have nothing to do with him.

We have entered the New Year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 2017, and today is the First Saturday of the year, the First Saturday of the month of January, the month of the Holy Name of Jesus.

May this First Saturday, which occurs on the second day of the Octave of the Epiphany of Our Lord Jesus Christ this year, find us on our knees as we attempt to fulfill Our Lady’s Fatima Message to make reparation for the blasphemies uttered against her by praying as many Rosaries as our state-in-life permits.

Although we may not live to see the resolution of this era of apostasy and betrayal, noting that there are several momentous anniversaries that occur this year, including the one hundredth anniversary of Our Lady’s Fatima apparitions, we can continue to try to plant the seeds for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter and the vanquishing of the heresies that abound at this time.

We can do this by offering up our entire liberty—everything—as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of  Mary, being content to let her make use of whatever merits we might earn according to her sweet dispositions that are to be found in the depth of her maternal heart that longs for the children redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of her Divine Son’s Most Precious Blood to save their souls. All we need to do is to live more penitentially by offering up to her Divine Son through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart our acts of reparation for our many sins as we beg her for the graces of final perseverance.

The Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end.

We have nothing to fear.


Our Lady, the very Mother of God who was given inestimable marks of veneration by Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthazar, is on the side of Catholic truth, which is immutable. All we need to do is to have a childlike trust in her as we seek to work out our salvation in fear and in trembling as members of the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of Divine Providence, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.



The Catholic Church's Condemnation of the Evolution of Dogma

  • For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward

    • not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
    • but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
  • Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910; see also Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure.)

In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.


Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist.What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients. (Pope Pius XII,Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

Appendix B

Pope Pius XII's Specific Condemnation of the "New Theology's" Disparagement of  the Scholastic Method

27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.

28. These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons who are deceived by imprudent zeal for souls or by false science. To them We are compelled with grief to repeat once again truths already well known, and to point out with solicitude clear errors and dangers of error.

29. It is well known how highly the Church regards human reason, for it falls to reason to demonstrate with certainty the existence of God, personal and one; to prove beyond doubt from divine signs the very foundations of the Christian faith; to express properly the law which the Creator has imprinted in the hearts of men; and finally to attain to some notion, indeed a very fruitful notion, of mysteries[7] But reason can perform these functions safely and well, only when properly trained, that is, when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by earlier Christian ages, and which moreover possesses an authority of even higher order, since the Teaching Authority of the Church, in the light of divine revelation itself, has weighed its fundamental tenets, which have been elaborated and defined little by little by men of great genius. For this philosophy, acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality, and finality, and finally the mind's ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth.

30. Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things, especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. However, even in these fundamental questions, we may clothe our philosophy in a more convenient and richer dress, make it more vigorous with a more effective terminology, divest it of certain scholastic aids found less useful, prudently enrich it with the fruits of progress of the human mind. But never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic. For truth and its philosophic expression cannot change from day to day, least of all where there is question of self-evident principles of the human mind or of those propositions which are supported by the wisdom of the ages and by divine revelation. Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth. Let no Christian therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.

31. If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy "according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor,"[8] since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both for teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony with divine revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith, and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress.[9]

32. How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and honored by the Church, is scorned by some, who shamelessly call it outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its method of thought. They say that this philosophy upholds the erroneous notion that there can be a metaphysic that is absolutely true; whereas in fact, they say, reality, especially transcendent reality, cannot better be expressed than by disparate teachings, which mutually complete each other, although they are in a way mutually opposed. Our traditional philosophy, then, with its clear exposition and solution of questions, its accurate definition of terms, its clear-cut distinctions, can be, they concede, useful as a preparation for scholastic theology, a preparation quite in accord with medieval mentality; but this philosophy hardly offers a method of philosophizing suited to the needs of our modern culture. They allege, finally, that our perennial philosophy is only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the contemporary mind must look to the existence of things and to life, which is ever in flux. While scorning our philosophy, they extol other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this is, especially where there is question of those fictitious theories they call immanentism, or idealism, or materialism, whether historic or dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies the validity of the reason in the field of metaphysics.

33. Finally, they reproach this philosophy taught in our schools for regarding only the intellect in the process of cognition, while neglecting the function of the will and the emotions. This is simply not true. Never has Christian philosophy denied the usefulness and efficacy of good dispositions of soul for perceiving and embracing moral and religious truths. In fact, it has always taught that the lack of these dispositions of good will can be the reason why the intellect, influenced by the passions and evil inclinations, can be so obscured that it cannot see clearly. Indeed St. Thomas holds that the intellect can in some way perceive higher goods of the moral order, whether natural or supernatural, inasmuch as it experiences a certain "connaturality" with these goods, whether this "connaturality" be purely natural, or the result of grace;[10] and it is clear how much even this somewhat obscure perception can help the reason in its investigations. However it is one thing to admit the power of the dispositions of the will in helping reason to gain a more certain and firm knowledge of moral truths; it is quite another thing to say, as these innovators do, indiscriminately mingling cognition and act of will, that the appetitive and affective faculties have a certain power of understanding, and that man, since he cannot by using his reason decide with certainty what is true and is to be accepted, turns to his will, by which he freely chooses among opposite opinions.

34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)