MODERNISM, THE NEW EVANGELIZATION & POPE FRANCIS
This year we celebrate the centennial of the death of our patron saint, St. Pius X, who passed to his heavenly reward on August 20, 1914. Our Superior General has invited us to celebrate this important anniversary. For right now, allow me simply to quote some brief passages from the encyclical that can right be called his greatest, on account of its historical importance, perspicacity, and clarity of view on the errors of our times — Pascendi. This encyclical on Modernism does not hesitate to define it “to be the synthesis of all heresies” (§39) whose “system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion”(Ib.).
The danger of Modernism is that these “partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church`s open enemies; but what is to be most dreaded and deplored, in her very bosom, and are all the more mischievous the less they keep in the open.” (§2) He further explains that the danger lies in that they “put themselves forward as reformers of the Church”, and this despite the fact that “thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church…[they] assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ.” (Ib.) Although exteriorly members of the Church, he considers them “as the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church”, and the reason he gives is that their theories destroy that which is most fundamental to the life of the Church — Faith: “They lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the Faith and its deepest fibers”. (§3).
RELIGIOUS CONSCIOUSNESS = REVELATION
Of St. Pius X’s very complete explanation of why this is the case, let me simply retain this pertinent summary: “From this, Venerable Brethren, springs that most absurd tenet of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. It is thus that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. From this they derive the law laid down as the universal standard, according to which religious consciousness is to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and that to it all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church.” (§8). This means that the individual or community awareness, perception and experience of religion and of God are considered as if they were revelation, according to which all religion can pretend to be from God, and as Vatican II stated, “many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its [i.e. the Church’s] visible confines”, and that the Church must recognize and submit to the reality of religious experience, of consciousness of God, of faith experience, in all religions. Let us look at a practical application of this.
THE NEW EVANGELIZATION
You have without a doubt heard of Joy of the Gospel, Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation of November 24, 2013, in which the Pope pretends to reform the Church, and the very Papacy itself. However, many of you may not be aware that this document, in reality presents the theory of the New Evangelization, drawing much more radical conclusions than Pope Paul VI`s exhortation on the same subject of 1975, entitled Evangelii nuntiandi. Of course, you will not find in either exhortation a scholastic definition of the New Evangelization (or of anything else for that matter). But to understand Pope Francis, we must understand the New Evangelization, and that it is not just a vague, pious expression, but that it does have a precise meaning.
Pope John Paul II, in his 1994 book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, gives the New Evangelization a place of great importance. His hypothesis is that the very concept of evangelization is a historical one, “the encounter of the Gospel with the culture of each epoch” (p. 108), and so consequently one that changes according to historical circumstances. It is consequently “linked to generational change” as an “ever renewed encounter with man” (ibid., p. 113). The New Evangelization is thus defined by John Paul II as “a response to the new challenges that the contemporary world creates for the mission of the Church” (ibid., p. 114). It has “nothing in common with” either restoration or proselytism. But it is not pure pluralism and tolerance either (ibid., p. 115). It is “a proclamation of the Gospel capable of accompanying man on his pilgrim way” (ibid., p. 117).
You can be excused for failing to understand such vague terminology. However, a document (December 14, 2007) from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled “Doctrinal Note on some Aspects of Evangelization” explains it more clearly. It means substituting for the teaching and public profession of the Faith (the traditional manner of handing down divinely revealed Truth) modern means: personal witness, sharing from person to person, dialogue, and ecumenism. It is the expression of our inalienable right and duty to religious liberty (§10), by which “an individual’s personal conscience is reached and touched”(§11). It is closely connected with Ecumenism, and consequently requires listening, and seeking to understand the beliefs, traditions, and convictions of others, in which partial agreement can be found through dialogue (§12), and thus it brings about an enrichment, not only “for those who are evangelized; it is also an enrichment for the one who does the evangelizing, as well as for the entire Church. For example, in the process of inculturation” (§6). Unbelievable! It is not only the person who dialogues with the heretic, schismatic, unbeliever, agnostic, or communist who is supposedly “enriched,” but the Church Herself, Teacher of divine truth!
To put it in simple terms, the New Evangelization is a natural sharing process that builds up a certain human sense of oneness and community on a purely natural level. It stands in opposition to the direct teaching of supernaturally revealed truth. It is a human phenomenon of dialogue, corresponding to a man’s desire to have others share in his goods (§7). It is consequently not specifically Catholic, but something that any other religious person can practice. Used as a means of spreading the Faith, it is consequently and necessarily a form of naturalism. In this it differs radically from the traditional preaching of divine truth, as St. Paul commands St. Timothy to do, regardless of what anyone might think or say about it: “Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine” (2 Tim 4:2).
There is a “theological” basis for this new teaching, and it can be found in the Vatican II document on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, §1 & 3, quoted in §5 of the above-mentioned note. The principle of religious liberty is thus stated: “Truth can impose itself on the mind of man only in virtue of its own truth.” This false principle is the denial of all role of authority, especially necessary in the communication of Divine Revelation, taught to us by the authority of the Church itself, without which we could not have the assurance of infallible truth at all.
Hence is the conclusion concerning the New Evangelization that the Doctrinal Note quotes, taken right out of Vatican II: “The search for truth, however, must be carried out in a manner that is appropriate to the dignity of the human person and his social nature, namely by free enquiry with the help of teaching or instruction, communication, and dialogue. It is by these means that men share with each other the truth they have discovered, [or think they have discovered]{.underline}, in such a way that they help [one another]{.underline} in the search for truth” (D.H. §3). The equality of all religions in such exchanges is entirely manifest, that is to say that the religious consciousness of all believers is to be respected as a source of truth and enlightenment, a means of evangelization. How can this be any different from the basis of Modernism so clearly condemned by St. Pius X, namely “religious consciousness is to be placed on a equal footing with revelation”, and that ultimately faith is a subjective, personal experience, each person`s faith imposing its truth by his personal experience?
WHITHER GOES THE NEW EVANGELIZATION?
A few texts from Joy of the Gospel of Pope Francis will illustrate the logical conclusions of the New Evangelization. He praises “a healthy pluralism, one which genuinely respects differences and [values]{.underline} them as such” (§255), and which “includes the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one`s beliefs in public”. Ecumenism with other Christians is considered an “indispensable path to evangelization” and is founded on the false “principle of the hierarchy of truths”, which means to “concentrate on the opinions we share”, so as “to progress decidedly towards common expressions of proclamation, service and witness” (§246). There is no mention of the fact that this means silence on many points of doctrine, and that every Catholic dogma is equally obligatory, under pain of losing the Faith. This principle of the hierarchy of truths is precisely that uncovered in Pascendi. St. Pius X condemns the modernist distinction between primitive and secondary formulas, the latter being elaborated through evolution by the common consciousness and are called dogmas (§13 & 21), which because they must adapt to each culture cannot be obligatory.
Judaism has become so acceptable that the Jews do not have to convert, for their false religion is perfectly acceptable, even with their denial of the Trinity and of the divinity of Christ: “Their covenant with God has never been revoked…we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God…the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism” (§247-249). Likewise for Muslims for “together with us they adore the one, merciful God”, and then follows the astonishing affirmation that denies the obvious evidence of the theory and practice of Islam, “for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence” (§253). Hence the importance of interreligious dialogue, for “by mutual listening, both parts can be purified and enriched” (§250), for “appearances notwithstanding, [every person]{.underline} is immensely holy and deserves our love” (§274), and consequently “whenever we encounter another person in love, we learn something new [about God]{.underline}. Whenever our eyes are opened to acknowledge the other, we grow in the light of faith and knowledge of God” (§272). Clearly here the Pope is not speaking about the supernatural knowledge that comes through divine revelation but the experiential knowledge that the modernist believes comes from religious consciousness.
Particularly concerning are the numerous statements that attack the Church, its Magisterium, its divinely given teaching and governing authority. All these sacred institutions, that protect the deposit of the Faith, and the life of grace are spoken of in a pejorative and a demeaning manner, precisely because they are objective and not open to religious consciousness. For example, “there are ecclesial structures that can hamper efforts at evangelization” (§26), and the Church must channel her efforts “for the evangelization of today`s world [rather]{.underline} than for her [self-preservation”]{.underline} (§27). Likewise the approval of the non-hierarchical and non-clerical “basic communities…they bring…a new capacity for dialogue with the world [whereby]{.underline} the Church is renewed” (§29). Similar also is the attack on “certain structures” in parishes, or “a bureaucratic way of dealing with problems”, or “an administrative approach” or on ” a concentration on administering the sacraments”. (§63).
Likewise the “conversion of the Papacy”, to be replaced by collegiality, that is by a “sound decentralization…nor do I believe that the papal magisterium should be expected to offer a definitive or complete word on every question which affects the Church” (§16). This is effectively a giving up of the Pope`s power to govern the Church, for if the Vicar of Christ cannot resolve issues, who can? Obviously, he means to say that the collective consciousness of the people can, as represented by the bishops. Modernism again. Hence the call for “a juridical status of Episcopal conferences…including genuine doctrinal authority” and a giving up of the Pope`s authority to govern through the Curia: “The papacy and the central structures of the universal Church also need to hear the call to pastoral conversion” so as to overcome “excessive centralization” (§32).
Likewise follows the call for an overturning of ecclesiastical Tradition, and even the precepts of the Church, considered as “customs…no longer properly understood and appreciated…they no longer serve as means of communicating the Gospel… no longer have the same usefulness for directing and shaping people`s lives”. (§43). Of course, they are despised because they impose objective obligations and are incompatible with the dialogue with the religious consciousness of the world.
The attack on traditional Catholicism is very clear, for Francis considers it as a form of “spiritual worldliness”, of being filled with self, and even of Pelagianism, that is a denial of the necessity of grace, replaced in the traditional Catholic by a dependence upon certain rules that make him feel “superior”. Apart from being a false rash judgment, this view fails to see that the ceremonies, doctrine and discipline of Tradition are precisely the means for the sinner to obtain grace. Far from being self-serving, and elevating to pride, they turn us constantly towards the example and Cross of our holy Redeemer, and are the proof of obedience and submission to what the Church has always taught and done, that is of true humility. However, if grace is considered as openness to religious consciousness, we can understand that this condemnation is founded on the belief that refusing consciousness as a source of faith and religious life, the traditional Catholic is consequently both judgmental and without grace. In the light of modernism it all makes sense.
Here are Francis` own words: “the self-absorbed promethean neopelagianism of those who ultimately trust only in their own powers and feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style from the past. A supposed soundness of doctrine or discipline leads instead to a narcissistic (i.e. self serving) and authoritarian elitism…we see an ostentatious preoccupation for the liturgy, for doctrine and for the Church`s prestige…In this way, the life of the Church turns into a museum piece or something which is the property of a select few” (§94 & 95). This is a phenomenal denigration of twenty centuries of Catholic life, and of all his predecessors, who taught constantly the necessity for sound doctrine, strict discipline, the recognition of authority and hierarchy, a preoccupation for the liturgy, and for the respect due to Holy Mother Church, the mystical spouse of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Why does this Pope respect the religious experience of Jews, Muslims, Protestants and even non-believers (§257), but despise that of those who follow the 2,000 year Tradition of the Church? Clearly because the latter is not a religious consciousness, but an obedience to the objective Faith, morality, liturgy and discipline of the Church of all time. It is because Catholic Tradition is incompatible with modernism, unlike all the other religious experiences that he admires so much.
So the battle lines are drawn. It is St. Pius X versus Francis; Catholic and supernatural revealed truth versus Modernism. To encourage you in this combat, let me quote the concluding words of St. Pius X in his follow up Motu proprio of September 1, 1910, which was his response to the resistance to his encyclical from three years before: “We are no longer dealing, as at the beginning, with opponents in sheep`s clothing, but with open and bare-faced enemies in our very household, who, having made a pact with the chief foes of the Church, are bent on overthrowing the Faith. These are men whose haughtiness in the face of heavenly wisdom is daily renewed, claiming the right to correct it as if it were corrupted. They want to renovate it as if it were consumed by old age, increase and adapt it to worldly tastes, progress and comforts…There will never be enough vigilance and firmness on the part of those entrusted with the faithful safe-keeping of the sacred deposit of evangelical doctrine and ecclesiastical tradition, in order to oppose these onslaughts against it ”
Let us remain faithful to the Crusade of the Rosary called for by Bishop Fellay for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and let us continue in tit with a truly crusading spirit, that all things might finally be restored in Christ.
Father Peter R. Scott
Taken from Nova et Vetera of February 2014
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.