What do you think?
Rate this book
Encíclica Pascendi Dominici Gregis: Sobre as Doutrinas Modernistas
Um dos mais importantes documentos do Papa São Pio X, a célebre Encíclica Pascendi Dominici Gregis foi promulgada em 8 de setembro de 1907.
São Pio X, nesta Encíclica, condena o movimento modernista, denominando-o como a "síntese de todas as heresias", numa época em que esse movimento começava a se infiltrar nos meios católicos, com o objetivo de relativizar, e até mesmo deturpar o ensinamento do magistério tradicional e infalível da Igreja, procurando levar os católicos incautos a aceitarem os erros do mundo moderno.
Para facilitar o estudo da Pascendi, e consequentemente para um melhor entendimento sobre o modernismo, apresentamos, como introdução, um artigo do ilustre Padre Leonel Franca, publicado em 1926, com comentários e explicações importantes sobre a Encíclica.
Embora tenha se passado mais de um século da condenação do modernismo por São Pio X, consideramos de extrema importância a atualidade deste assunto, tendo em vista que a heresia modernista renasceu e se multiplicou nos meios católicos nas últimas décadas, configurando-se como um dos fundamentos da atual crise na Igreja.
São Pio X, nesta Encíclica, condena o movimento modernista, denominando-o como a "síntese de todas as heresias", numa época em que esse movimento começava a se infiltrar nos meios católicos, com o objetivo de relativizar, e até mesmo deturpar o ensinamento do magistério tradicional e infalível da Igreja, procurando levar os católicos incautos a aceitarem os erros do mundo moderno.
Para facilitar o estudo da Pascendi, e consequentemente para um melhor entendimento sobre o modernismo, apresentamos, como introdução, um artigo do ilustre Padre Leonel Franca, publicado em 1926, com comentários e explicações importantes sobre a Encíclica.
Embora tenha se passado mais de um século da condenação do modernismo por São Pio X, consideramos de extrema importância a atualidade deste assunto, tendo em vista que a heresia modernista renasceu e se multiplicou nos meios católicos nas últimas décadas, configurando-se como um dos fundamentos da atual crise na Igreja.
110 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 8, 1907
57 people are currently reading
200 people want to read
About the author
Pope Pius X
122 books36 followersPope Saint Pius X (Ecclesiastical Latin: Pius PP. X), born Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto, was the 257th Pope of the Catholic Church, serving from 1903 to 1914. He was the first pope since Pope Pius V to be canonized. Pius X rejected modernist interpretations of Catholic doctrine, promoting traditional devotional practices and orthodox theology. His most important reform was to publish the first Code of Canon Law, which collected the laws of the Church into one volume for the first time. Frequent communion was a lasting innovation of his papacy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
September 1, 2017
“There’s no such thing as a new truth. Error might be old or new; but truth’s as old as the universe.”* +Frederick Douglass
As a Christian I know that Truth isn’t new—as did Douglass and St. Pius X—because Truth is not a thing, but a Person, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
He is the Son of God, the Eternal Word, the Logos, the Alpha and the Omega, Our LORD and Savior, Jesus Christ. And He is as He ever was ... unchangeable.
What St. Pius is fighting in this encyclical is arrogant agnosticism, which seeks to undermine the authority of belief by confining human knowledge to the knowable world and faith to the unknowable world. Science and Faith never meet, at least to the Modernists; there is therefore no conflict between them, but there is also no connection. One is perfectly free to hold that Jesus existed in the world of reality insofar as there are historical proofs of His existence, but that only speaks to His reality as a human being. Modernists put all miracles into the realm of faith and those are not deemed ‘knowable’. However one is free to have the ‘sense’ – the feeling – that will move you to pray. According to the modernists, it is not possible to accept supernatural occurrences as ‘real’, so we cannot believe in them. We must not use our minds, only our hearts. Well I don’t know about anyone else, but as soon as someone tells me I can’t use my mind, I can think of one or two things I’d like to tell them! But I digress…
For the Modernist, the reality of the divine does not really exist in itself, but only in the experience of the individual believer. (Poor believer, I say!) Therefore, the modernist does not deny but can actually maintain that all religions are true. And what about Sacred Scripture?
The more I read, the more preposterous the Modernist agenda became and yet I did struggle through to the end, highlighting the more ridiculous ideas. I have only quoted a few of them to give you a general idea, for you reprobate THINKING believers ☺out there. It is an enlightening read, but not an easy one. St. Pius is a learned man and writes in the old style; remember this was 1907... It is definitely pre-Vatican II language using the capitalized first person for the pontiff and more than a few anathemas. Also, I suspect little thought was given to a wider audience, so for any outside the Catholic community, please do not take offense; it was a different time with different standards. Although Pius is writing primarily to faithful Catholic clergy with a view to protect the flock from those within seeking to undermine his church, it is not too much of a stretch to apply his words to any/all churches, which he does in a very few cases. Would that he had done it more, but his concern at the time was with his own immediate endangered flock.
When all is said and done, Modernism is such a sad and sorry set of non-beliefs, I kept wondering why anyone would even want to espouse them?!
You can read the encyclical here.
There is also a good review of this encyclical by Father Godfrey Carney which you can google if you so desire. In prudence, I have decided to delete my link due to controversial comments made by the sponsoring site.
*This quote comes from a lecture delivered in 1863, by Frederick Douglass, former slave and leading abolitionist writer and orator, just a few weeks after the passing of the Emancipation Proclamation, at Hillsdale College. The lecture was entitled, “Popular Error and Unpopular Truth”.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
August 13, 2017: Reading at recommendation of Professor Brant Pitre who says although it is one of the least known encyclicals it is his favorite. He called the heresy of modernism the heresy of all heresies because it is almost impossible to stamp out much less identify as it can morph into something new (hence the name modernism) at will. That description sent chills down my spine and also piqued my interest. Up til now I thought this was something which had been overcome/solved by Vatican II. Not so!
I like the name of the encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis. It means "Feeding the Lord's Flock" and the author, Pope Pius X, is recognized by the Church as a saint.
As a Christian I know that Truth isn’t new—as did Douglass and St. Pius X—because Truth is not a thing, but a Person, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
He is the Son of God, the Eternal Word, the Logos, the Alpha and the Omega, Our LORD and Savior, Jesus Christ. And He is as He ever was ... unchangeable.
What St. Pius is fighting in this encyclical is arrogant agnosticism, which seeks to undermine the authority of belief by confining human knowledge to the knowable world and faith to the unknowable world. Science and Faith never meet, at least to the Modernists; there is therefore no conflict between them, but there is also no connection. One is perfectly free to hold that Jesus existed in the world of reality insofar as there are historical proofs of His existence, but that only speaks to His reality as a human being. Modernists put all miracles into the realm of faith and those are not deemed ‘knowable’. However one is free to have the ‘sense’ – the feeling – that will move you to pray. According to the modernists, it is not possible to accept supernatural occurrences as ‘real’, so we cannot believe in them. We must not use our minds, only our hearts. Well I don’t know about anyone else, but as soon as someone tells me I can’t use my mind, I can think of one or two things I’d like to tell them! But I digress…
For the Modernist, the reality of the divine does not really exist in itself, but only in the experience of the individual believer. (Poor believer, I say!) Therefore, the modernist does not deny but can actually maintain that all religions are true. And what about Sacred Scripture?
‘We may ask, what then becomes of inspiration? Inspiration, they reply, is in nowise distinguished from that impulse which stimulates the believer to reveal the faith that is in him by words of writing, except perhaps by its vehemence. It is something like that which happens in poetical inspiration, of which it has been said: There is a God in us, and when he stirreth he sets us afire. It is in this sense that God is said to be the origin of the inspiration of the Sacred Books. The Modernists moreover affirm concerning this inspiration, that there is nothing in the Sacred Books which is devoid of it. In this respect some might be disposed to consider them as more orthodox than certain writers in recent times who somewhat restrict inspiration, as, for instance, in what have been put forward as so-called tacit citations. But in all this we have mere verbal conjuring.’ So much for the Holy Spirit!And as for Truth being Eternal, well you can forget about that. Christ isn’t divine. He isn’t even a figment of our imagination. He is just our feelings!
The more I read, the more preposterous the Modernist agenda became and yet I did struggle through to the end, highlighting the more ridiculous ideas. I have only quoted a few of them to give you a general idea, for you reprobate THINKING believers ☺out there. It is an enlightening read, but not an easy one. St. Pius is a learned man and writes in the old style; remember this was 1907... It is definitely pre-Vatican II language using the capitalized first person for the pontiff and more than a few anathemas. Also, I suspect little thought was given to a wider audience, so for any outside the Catholic community, please do not take offense; it was a different time with different standards. Although Pius is writing primarily to faithful Catholic clergy with a view to protect the flock from those within seeking to undermine his church, it is not too much of a stretch to apply his words to any/all churches, which he does in a very few cases. Would that he had done it more, but his concern at the time was with his own immediate endangered flock.
When all is said and done, Modernism is such a sad and sorry set of non-beliefs, I kept wondering why anyone would even want to espouse them?!
You can read the encyclical here.
There is also a good review of this encyclical by Father Godfrey Carney which you can google if you so desire. In prudence, I have decided to delete my link due to controversial comments made by the sponsoring site.
*This quote comes from a lecture delivered in 1863, by Frederick Douglass, former slave and leading abolitionist writer and orator, just a few weeks after the passing of the Emancipation Proclamation, at Hillsdale College. The lecture was entitled, “Popular Error and Unpopular Truth”.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
August 13, 2017: Reading at recommendation of Professor Brant Pitre who says although it is one of the least known encyclicals it is his favorite. He called the heresy of modernism the heresy of all heresies because it is almost impossible to stamp out much less identify as it can morph into something new (hence the name modernism) at will. That description sent chills down my spine and also piqued my interest. Up til now I thought this was something which had been overcome/solved by Vatican II. Not so!
I like the name of the encyclical, Pascendi Dominici Gregis. It means "Feeding the Lord's Flock" and the author, Pope Pius X, is recognized by the Church as a saint.
November 8, 2019
This encyclical is one of the more famous encyclicals, written as an explanation and counter to modernism which by the early twentieth century had taken over western culture. It delineates what modernism is and addresses their measures for changing the culture. Pope Pius X hopes to counter the modernist trend, and from a survey of western cultural history he failed. Still his effort is one of the first comprehensive documents delineating the modernist outlook. I gave it four stars for its importance, but I did find the document extremely philosophical, much more philosophical than contemporary encyclicals. And I also think the call for censorship of the modernists at the end of the encyclical was wrong and counterproductive. Still Pius X identifies many of the ills which have gone on to destroy our culture over the last century.
August 22, 2015
For being written a century ago, the descriptions of the modernists sound eerily similar to the advertised convictions of people I have met in Catholic schools and ministries. For the sake of such Catholics' fraternal correction and for your own awareness of these pervasive errors, read this encyclical letter. Pope St. Pius X handled his era's modernist crisis with astuteness and prudent pastoral disciplines-- may he be a guide to us in our own age of lagging faith and insidious heresies.
September 13, 2019
Pascendi is one of the most important encyclicals of our time. Penned in 1907 it condemns the errors of modernism. Step by step Saint Pope Pius X unravels the philosophy's incompatibility with religion in general and especially the revealed religion of Christianity. He is at times very sharp in his critique, especially to heterodox clergy.
January 3, 2016
My short review is this: this is a must-read for all true Catholics who have love for the church and concern for its current and ongoing well-being.
The longer review is as follows:
For something written in 1907, this encyclical is fully applicable today, which does not buoy my spirits.
Pope Saint Pius X warns of the danger to the Catholic Church from the Modernist movement, something with which I was not very familiar before reading this, although I did have a general sense of the dilution of our some of our core Catholic beliefs among even those that self-identify as Catholics. Much of this I attributed to societal pressure and "progress." I was not familiar with the Modernist movement per se, or the extent of the dangers that it poses to Catholicism.
Pope Saint Pius X takes the reader through a comprehensive look at the Modernist in all of his forms: philosopher, believer, theologian, historian, critic, apologist, and reformer. It becomes evident throughout the treatise the risk that modernism poses, as well as the fact that many Modernists reside within the church's own ranks of laity and priests. An attack on the church from without is an issue of magnitude. An attack from within is all the more insidious. It is clear that Pope Saint Pius X believed that the church was under attach on both fronts when he wrote this encyclical. I believe he not feel otherwise today.
Last year was the first year in which I began reading papal encyclicals to broaden and deepen my knowledge of my own faith. This encyclical was among a number which were on the "short list" or "must-read" lists on a number of Catholic websites, so I dove in in early December, expecting to complete it in a few days - after all it's only 49 pages long. 30 days later, I'm done. Granted, some of the delays were due to social and other obligations associated with the Christmas holiday. But my progress was slowed by two other factors:
1. My lack of familiarity with some of the terminology made it important for me to refer to the dictionary often, not only to understand some of the actual words, but also to understand the context and nuance. Case in point is this brief sentence segment: “... the Modernists contrive to make the transition from Agnosticism, which is a state of pure nescience, to scientific and historic Atheism, which is a doctrine of positive denial;” [Excerpt From: Pius X. “Pascendi Dominici Gregis - On the Doctrine of the Modernists.” iBooks.] With the exception of having to look up "nescience," I know the meaning of the words, but still needed to put some thought into what Pope Pius X was saying. And this is just a brief snippet.
2. Unsurprisingly, papal encyclicals can be heady material. This is not a summer read. Once I understood the message that Pope Saint Pius X was conveying in a section, I felt compelled to understand the broader context of his message, its applicability to the Catholic Church today, what it meant to me as a Catholic, what actions might I need to take, etc. So I approached this text as an active learner, not a passive reader and that required a bit more work on my part. Having this in e-book format was very helpful because I could highlight sections and record my own comments in the electronic "margins" as I went, something I am reluctant to do with hard copy books.
In spite of the time and effort I needed to put into this, I am glad I read it and did so studiously. This is an IMPORTANT piece of catholic literature and Pope Saint Pius X has given us a clear and relatively concise exposition of Modernism itself and the specific dangers it poses, not simply to educate and inform but to provide the tools necessary to fight it. I am a more educated Catholic for having read this.
God Bless Pope Saint Pius X
The longer review is as follows:
For something written in 1907, this encyclical is fully applicable today, which does not buoy my spirits.
Pope Saint Pius X warns of the danger to the Catholic Church from the Modernist movement, something with which I was not very familiar before reading this, although I did have a general sense of the dilution of our some of our core Catholic beliefs among even those that self-identify as Catholics. Much of this I attributed to societal pressure and "progress." I was not familiar with the Modernist movement per se, or the extent of the dangers that it poses to Catholicism.
Pope Saint Pius X takes the reader through a comprehensive look at the Modernist in all of his forms: philosopher, believer, theologian, historian, critic, apologist, and reformer. It becomes evident throughout the treatise the risk that modernism poses, as well as the fact that many Modernists reside within the church's own ranks of laity and priests. An attack on the church from without is an issue of magnitude. An attack from within is all the more insidious. It is clear that Pope Saint Pius X believed that the church was under attach on both fronts when he wrote this encyclical. I believe he not feel otherwise today.
Last year was the first year in which I began reading papal encyclicals to broaden and deepen my knowledge of my own faith. This encyclical was among a number which were on the "short list" or "must-read" lists on a number of Catholic websites, so I dove in in early December, expecting to complete it in a few days - after all it's only 49 pages long. 30 days later, I'm done. Granted, some of the delays were due to social and other obligations associated with the Christmas holiday. But my progress was slowed by two other factors:
1. My lack of familiarity with some of the terminology made it important for me to refer to the dictionary often, not only to understand some of the actual words, but also to understand the context and nuance. Case in point is this brief sentence segment: “... the Modernists contrive to make the transition from Agnosticism, which is a state of pure nescience, to scientific and historic Atheism, which is a doctrine of positive denial;” [Excerpt From: Pius X. “Pascendi Dominici Gregis - On the Doctrine of the Modernists.” iBooks.] With the exception of having to look up "nescience," I know the meaning of the words, but still needed to put some thought into what Pope Pius X was saying. And this is just a brief snippet.
2. Unsurprisingly, papal encyclicals can be heady material. This is not a summer read. Once I understood the message that Pope Saint Pius X was conveying in a section, I felt compelled to understand the broader context of his message, its applicability to the Catholic Church today, what it meant to me as a Catholic, what actions might I need to take, etc. So I approached this text as an active learner, not a passive reader and that required a bit more work on my part. Having this in e-book format was very helpful because I could highlight sections and record my own comments in the electronic "margins" as I went, something I am reluctant to do with hard copy books.
In spite of the time and effort I needed to put into this, I am glad I read it and did so studiously. This is an IMPORTANT piece of catholic literature and Pope Saint Pius X has given us a clear and relatively concise exposition of Modernism itself and the specific dangers it poses, not simply to educate and inform but to provide the tools necessary to fight it. I am a more educated Catholic for having read this.
God Bless Pope Saint Pius X
September 4, 2015
If you're unclear what modernism is start with this. It hasn't changed much in the last 100+ years. Pope Saint Pius X was an amazing man. Ora Pro Nobis! Save us from the modernists Papa!
June 4, 2020
I wanted to read this encyclical to further understand the problems we face in the Church today and to go right back to the original, to the Holy Father's words themselves, regarding the heresy of Modernism. For the first time in my (adult) life I was humbled by an English text and had to go back and grab the German translation in order to really understand what was said here. It was a difficult task for Pius X to summarise the errors of the Modernists, and he gives the reason for this in the encyclical:
But since the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in reality firm and steadfast, it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out the connexion between them, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil.
His Holiness managed this difficult job well, because he systematically explains the errors of the Modernists. Reading them, I couldn't help but think of Pope Franis though. Although it was a difficult task which Pius X mastered, I have to say that I believe one's time is better spent reading the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Modernism than reading this encyclical.
But since the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in reality firm and steadfast, it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out the connexion between them, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil.
His Holiness managed this difficult job well, because he systematically explains the errors of the Modernists. Reading them, I couldn't help but think of Pope Franis though. Although it was a difficult task which Pius X mastered, I have to say that I believe one's time is better spent reading the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Modernism than reading this encyclical.
May 10, 2021
St. Pius X wrote this encyclical against the emerging heresy of modernism, a slippery term but not an impossible one to grasp. Our good saint rightly saw unity underlying this belief and goes into detail about its philosophical underpinnings. I won’t go into all of the details as I could not do so nearly as clearly or concisely as St. Pius could, but I do want to highlight the a priori assumption of agnosticism on all fields of study. The starting assumption is that anything miraculous can be rejected as beyond our ability to study and know through science. A slippage of thought occurs here, one not acknowledged: though that assumption does not mean said events did not occur, the assumption of agnosticism jumps to the conclusion that they did not. An unnecessary division is made between Faith and Science (the latter often including studies in history, archeology, sociology, etc.). Hence the search for the “historical” Christ. This is not so much agnosticism (the declared principle of modernists) as it is atheism.
The list of insanity St. Pius predicts would be accepted following modernist thought has proven all too real: the belief that all religions are the same or equally valid, that the truth of our faith is grounded in our spiritual feelings and not on the authority of the Church, that dogmas can change based on changes in those ephemeral spiritual feelings, and ultimately that the source of truth about God is man. That last point can’t help but end in Pantheism (we are all God!) or atheism (we make rather pathetic gods).
Many have tried to distill Christ (or at least his Divinity) out of Christianity, but I’m yet to see that work anywhere. Either this is the Bride of Christ, infallible, the gate of salvation and the hope of us weak, sinful mortals, or it is not. It is a bold claim, but that has to be faced squarely. To say the Church is an avenue to salvation, but that it needs to tweak its teachings, be more pastoral by letting the sheep run wherever they will rather than leading them, less focused on sin, more focused on contemporary issues, and generally just in need of dropping the silly parts disproved by Almighty Science is to say the Church is, and can be, no more than a social club. Man is not going to improve God, and once it is attempted, the whole game is up. Again, the Church proper makes a bold claim. Camels through the eye of a needle, eating the flesh and blood of the Son of God, the Resurrection of the dead, the Incarnation of God into God-Man, the forgiveness of sins.
Ironically, it seems many, many Catholics, especially clergy, tone all of that down and flirt with modernism because they are afraid of frightening people. We should be more afraid of boring people. Those bold claims are what the world needs for the simple enough reason that they are true. And people are looking for this, but not finding it anywhere.
Credo in unum deum…that is a bolder claim than the rest combined. If that is believed, the rest are no impediment to belonging to the Church. If it can’t, the claims of miracles and divinity will seem embarrassing and need to be strained out.
But once you strain objective divinity out, divinity not subject to human whims, what do you have left?
St. Pius X, please pray for us!
The list of insanity St. Pius predicts would be accepted following modernist thought has proven all too real: the belief that all religions are the same or equally valid, that the truth of our faith is grounded in our spiritual feelings and not on the authority of the Church, that dogmas can change based on changes in those ephemeral spiritual feelings, and ultimately that the source of truth about God is man. That last point can’t help but end in Pantheism (we are all God!) or atheism (we make rather pathetic gods).
Many have tried to distill Christ (or at least his Divinity) out of Christianity, but I’m yet to see that work anywhere. Either this is the Bride of Christ, infallible, the gate of salvation and the hope of us weak, sinful mortals, or it is not. It is a bold claim, but that has to be faced squarely. To say the Church is an avenue to salvation, but that it needs to tweak its teachings, be more pastoral by letting the sheep run wherever they will rather than leading them, less focused on sin, more focused on contemporary issues, and generally just in need of dropping the silly parts disproved by Almighty Science is to say the Church is, and can be, no more than a social club. Man is not going to improve God, and once it is attempted, the whole game is up. Again, the Church proper makes a bold claim. Camels through the eye of a needle, eating the flesh and blood of the Son of God, the Resurrection of the dead, the Incarnation of God into God-Man, the forgiveness of sins.
Ironically, it seems many, many Catholics, especially clergy, tone all of that down and flirt with modernism because they are afraid of frightening people. We should be more afraid of boring people. Those bold claims are what the world needs for the simple enough reason that they are true. And people are looking for this, but not finding it anywhere.
Credo in unum deum…that is a bolder claim than the rest combined. If that is believed, the rest are no impediment to belonging to the Church. If it can’t, the claims of miracles and divinity will seem embarrassing and need to be strained out.
But once you strain objective divinity out, divinity not subject to human whims, what do you have left?
St. Pius X, please pray for us!
June 16, 2024
I can’t give this less than 5 stars, what a saint this most holy pope was. It cuts the enemies of Catholicism right in the throat, attacking profane philosophical language against the holy mysteries, this profane outlook really ignores even the basic teachings of the Scholastics and it is pervasive because it passes the idea as though it were something which no one can deny, something very similar happens with certain ideas that pass as dogmas of “science” but really have nothing scientific about them. It is true that the Church can make mistakes in some condemnations but not with regard to unerring doctrine, which is divine, and is not merely human. Unerring doctrine as:
. ** Christological and Trinitarian dogmas of the first ecumenical councils **:
- ** Council of Niceia (325) **: Definition of the divinity of Christ and condemnation of Arianism.
- ** Council of Constantinople (381) **: Affirmation of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit and condemnation of Macedonianism.
- ** Council of Ephesus (431) **: Definition of Mary as Mother of God (Theotokos) and condemnation of Nestorianism.
- ** Calcedon Council (451) **: Definition of the two natures of Christ (divine and human) in a single person.
- ** Immaculate Conception of Mary (1854) **: proclaimed by Pope Pius IX, stating that Mary was conceived without original sin.
- ** Assumption of Mary (1950) **: Proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, stating that Mary was a depletion to heaven in body and soul.
- ** Vatican Council I (1870) **: Definition of papal infallibility, which states that the Pope is infallible when he defines, ex cathedra, a dogma of faith or moral to be believed throughout the church.
These dogmas were proclaimed through ecumenical councils or by Ex -Cathedra of the Popes. Vatican II is not included here, and neither are here some papal condemnations.
. ** Christological and Trinitarian dogmas of the first ecumenical councils **:
- ** Council of Niceia (325) **: Definition of the divinity of Christ and condemnation of Arianism.
- ** Council of Constantinople (381) **: Affirmation of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit and condemnation of Macedonianism.
- ** Council of Ephesus (431) **: Definition of Mary as Mother of God (Theotokos) and condemnation of Nestorianism.
- ** Calcedon Council (451) **: Definition of the two natures of Christ (divine and human) in a single person.
- ** Immaculate Conception of Mary (1854) **: proclaimed by Pope Pius IX, stating that Mary was conceived without original sin.
- ** Assumption of Mary (1950) **: Proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, stating that Mary was a depletion to heaven in body and soul.
- ** Vatican Council I (1870) **: Definition of papal infallibility, which states that the Pope is infallible when he defines, ex cathedra, a dogma of faith or moral to be believed throughout the church.
These dogmas were proclaimed through ecumenical councils or by Ex -Cathedra of the Popes. Vatican II is not included here, and neither are here some papal condemnations.
October 5, 2017
This is prophetic. It is probably more exigent in 2017 than it was in 1907. Has the Catholic Church succumbed to modernism? I think in large part yes. It is difficult to tell, as the same action can be done for different reasons. The Church needs to take stock.
January 9, 2025
Pascendi Dominici Gregis
They became vain in their thoughts. . . professing themselves to be wise they became fools.” (Rom. i. 21, 22)
“Blind that they are, and leaders of the blind, inflated with a boastful science, they have reached that pitch of folly where they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true nature of the religious sentiment; with that new system of theirs they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can rest and maintain truth itself.”
Pius X here, after due private concern, kindness, and stern rebuke, finally says the time has come to make public the issue of Modernism, which he says is within the Church and is trying to cut at its immortal roots. To Ed Feser, this project of Pius X’s, to “strangle the monster (of Modernism) in its crib” has failed, and now the monster is fully grown. It’s still worth looking at the Pope’s writings as perhaps the clearest look at the thing.
First, he has to define Modernism as a movement. One of the pernicious aspects of Modernism is its insistence it isn’t definable as a movement, when in reality there are clear tenets and principles. The root of it is agnosticism—the belief that nothing can really be known. This is a direct attack on the Faith, which claims even God can be known through natural reason. This leads to historical and scientific atheism. If we can’t know God, all we can focus on are phenomena—we can’t include God’s presence in history or the Divine Mind when considering science.
Since natural theology is destroyed, we only have “religious immanence” as a positive notion—religion fills a sentimental need for a God. As Carl Trueman says, man has become psychologized. As an effect, so has God. Religion starts, to the modernist, as a “subconscious” need. Here we get the “God of the gaps,” the God who exists only in spaces that history or science hasn’t fully understood yet. As Jung or Jordan Peterson says, revelation is really just consciousness, the human subconscious reaching out to write about the thing it feels a sentimental desire for. Of COURSE it’s not actually God actually revealing Himself to men. We are the beginning and end of religion.
The historical critical method that follows is terrible. First, anything divine must be rejected. Second, things related to faith are transfigured by the faithful and can’t be trusted. Third, everything in faith not keeping with historical context must be eliminated. You see Benedict XVI showing the ridiculous outcomes of this in his Jesus of Nazareth trilogy, where he shows that the only place historical criticism of the Bible has gotten us is to equally plausible yet contradictory positions that reject the Divine, so as Catholics, we must abandon it.
The Modernists then say that the intellect, reflecting on its religious sentiments, is able to form dogmas. The intellect basically rationalizes the sentiment to try to explain faith. It’s all very Cartesian. Descartes comes to God, but through the psyche, the inner self, instead of by the world/reality itself like Aristotle and Aquinas. Thus, since its interior instead of exterior, dogmas, to the modernist, can change to better adapt to consciousness and religious sentiment. The dogmas MUST change in order to suit the tastes of people, to appeal to their sentiment of faith (I hear James Martin calling homosexuality “differently ordered” rather than “disordered”).
The modernist believer thinks faith rests on some profound experience which stays with them. But “What is to prevent such experiences from being met within every religion?” Nothing.
Worth quoting in full—
“The Methods of Modernists—This becomes still clearer to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they write history they pay no heed to the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between theological and pastoral exegesis and scientific and historical exegesis. So, too, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, when they treat of philosophy, history, criticism, feeling no horror at treading in the footsteps of Luther, they are wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines, or the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, guided by the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly criticise the Church because of her sheer obstinacy in refusing to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, after having blotted out the old theology, endeavour to introduce a new theology which shall follow the vagaries of their philosophers.”
Modernists also see the laity as the vanguard, the frontrunners who will push the Church forward, forcing it to “evolve,” while the magisterium simply tries to protect old notions.
Other obsessions, such as that of evolution, evolution of ideas, etc. and a fixation on modern critical historical method (which a priori reduces everything supernatural to merely additions by the faithful and give all the biblical texts groups of authors over the course of hundreds of years rather than a single author) transfix the modernist. Because of all these things, they see a need for total reform in the Church.
This subjective agnosticism at the heart of it destroys any chance for finding the Truth. Everything is sentiment and will, which without intellect is essentially meaningless.
Curiosity and pride are morally at the wicked heart of modernism, as is, ironically, ignorance. The modernist scorns Scholasticism because they are terribly ignorant of Scholasticism. Of scholasticism, “there is no surer sign that a man is on the way to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for this system.”
What remedies are there for this?
1. Study scholasticism, especially that of Aquinas and his metaphysics
2. On this foundation, study theology
On education, Leo XIII said “If you carefully search for the cause of those errors you will find that it lies in the fact that in these days when the natural sciences absorb so much study, the more severe and lofty studies have been proportionately neglected - some of them have almost passed into oblivion, some of them are pursued in a half-hearted or superficial way, and, sad to say, now that they are fallen from their old estate, they have been dis figured by perverse doctrines and monstrous errors”
3. Choose good professors who aren’t modernists—students model themselves on their teachers
They became vain in their thoughts. . . professing themselves to be wise they became fools.” (Rom. i. 21, 22)
“Blind that they are, and leaders of the blind, inflated with a boastful science, they have reached that pitch of folly where they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true nature of the religious sentiment; with that new system of theirs they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, condemned by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can rest and maintain truth itself.”
Pius X here, after due private concern, kindness, and stern rebuke, finally says the time has come to make public the issue of Modernism, which he says is within the Church and is trying to cut at its immortal roots. To Ed Feser, this project of Pius X’s, to “strangle the monster (of Modernism) in its crib” has failed, and now the monster is fully grown. It’s still worth looking at the Pope’s writings as perhaps the clearest look at the thing.
First, he has to define Modernism as a movement. One of the pernicious aspects of Modernism is its insistence it isn’t definable as a movement, when in reality there are clear tenets and principles. The root of it is agnosticism—the belief that nothing can really be known. This is a direct attack on the Faith, which claims even God can be known through natural reason. This leads to historical and scientific atheism. If we can’t know God, all we can focus on are phenomena—we can’t include God’s presence in history or the Divine Mind when considering science.
Since natural theology is destroyed, we only have “religious immanence” as a positive notion—religion fills a sentimental need for a God. As Carl Trueman says, man has become psychologized. As an effect, so has God. Religion starts, to the modernist, as a “subconscious” need. Here we get the “God of the gaps,” the God who exists only in spaces that history or science hasn’t fully understood yet. As Jung or Jordan Peterson says, revelation is really just consciousness, the human subconscious reaching out to write about the thing it feels a sentimental desire for. Of COURSE it’s not actually God actually revealing Himself to men. We are the beginning and end of religion.
The historical critical method that follows is terrible. First, anything divine must be rejected. Second, things related to faith are transfigured by the faithful and can’t be trusted. Third, everything in faith not keeping with historical context must be eliminated. You see Benedict XVI showing the ridiculous outcomes of this in his Jesus of Nazareth trilogy, where he shows that the only place historical criticism of the Bible has gotten us is to equally plausible yet contradictory positions that reject the Divine, so as Catholics, we must abandon it.
The Modernists then say that the intellect, reflecting on its religious sentiments, is able to form dogmas. The intellect basically rationalizes the sentiment to try to explain faith. It’s all very Cartesian. Descartes comes to God, but through the psyche, the inner self, instead of by the world/reality itself like Aristotle and Aquinas. Thus, since its interior instead of exterior, dogmas, to the modernist, can change to better adapt to consciousness and religious sentiment. The dogmas MUST change in order to suit the tastes of people, to appeal to their sentiment of faith (I hear James Martin calling homosexuality “differently ordered” rather than “disordered”).
The modernist believer thinks faith rests on some profound experience which stays with them. But “What is to prevent such experiences from being met within every religion?” Nothing.
Worth quoting in full—
“The Methods of Modernists—This becomes still clearer to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they write history they pay no heed to the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between theological and pastoral exegesis and scientific and historical exegesis. So, too, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, when they treat of philosophy, history, criticism, feeling no horror at treading in the footsteps of Luther, they are wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines, or the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, guided by the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly criticise the Church because of her sheer obstinacy in refusing to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, after having blotted out the old theology, endeavour to introduce a new theology which shall follow the vagaries of their philosophers.”
Modernists also see the laity as the vanguard, the frontrunners who will push the Church forward, forcing it to “evolve,” while the magisterium simply tries to protect old notions.
Other obsessions, such as that of evolution, evolution of ideas, etc. and a fixation on modern critical historical method (which a priori reduces everything supernatural to merely additions by the faithful and give all the biblical texts groups of authors over the course of hundreds of years rather than a single author) transfix the modernist. Because of all these things, they see a need for total reform in the Church.
This subjective agnosticism at the heart of it destroys any chance for finding the Truth. Everything is sentiment and will, which without intellect is essentially meaningless.
Curiosity and pride are morally at the wicked heart of modernism, as is, ironically, ignorance. The modernist scorns Scholasticism because they are terribly ignorant of Scholasticism. Of scholasticism, “there is no surer sign that a man is on the way to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for this system.”
What remedies are there for this?
1. Study scholasticism, especially that of Aquinas and his metaphysics
2. On this foundation, study theology
On education, Leo XIII said “If you carefully search for the cause of those errors you will find that it lies in the fact that in these days when the natural sciences absorb so much study, the more severe and lofty studies have been proportionately neglected - some of them have almost passed into oblivion, some of them are pursued in a half-hearted or superficial way, and, sad to say, now that they are fallen from their old estate, they have been dis figured by perverse doctrines and monstrous errors”
3. Choose good professors who aren’t modernists—students model themselves on their teachers
July 24, 2023
When Pius X tackles modernism thought head on, using philosophical arguments to counter atheistic intellectualism and relativistic thinking, this encyclical is most effective. It lost me a bit when the late Pope tries to pull rank a bit too much, waving his finger and commanding his bishops, priests and layperson to obstruct and censor all material and ideas that do not neatly fit within the Catholic mindscape.
January 23, 2019
Nesta encíclica de 1907, São Pio X resume as marcas identificadoras do modernismo teológico e sugere algumas medidas para o seu enfrentamento.
O erro essencial do modernismo, ‘síntese de todas as heresias’, é considerar que a religião tem origem em um sentimento, em um afeto.
Os objetos da religião são imagens e racionalizações de um instinto humano, uma espécie de deslumbramento diante do incognoscível.
Toda religião é verdadeira e natural, na medida em que satisfaz a uma necessidade vital de cada homem concreto.
Negando a Revelação externa ao homem, o modernismo confunde Deus com o vazio existencial de cada pessoa, e vende a imanência religiosa e o evolucionismo dos dogmas como verdadeira história das religiões. História de um afeto e das formas de vida que ele inspira.
A oposição superficial entre Ciência e Religião, que o modernismo fabrica, resulta em materialismo rasteiro e em subordinação da segunda à primeira, disfarçada de respeito à vida religiosa, como experiência subtraída do debate racional.
A razão não é mais capaz de enxergar, com o auxílio da Graça, as pegadas de Deus na ordem da natureza.
Presa no positivismo do mensurável, abdica do trono da alma humana e o caos dos afetos ocupa o vácuo de poder.
O erro essencial do modernismo, ‘síntese de todas as heresias’, é considerar que a religião tem origem em um sentimento, em um afeto.
Os objetos da religião são imagens e racionalizações de um instinto humano, uma espécie de deslumbramento diante do incognoscível.
Toda religião é verdadeira e natural, na medida em que satisfaz a uma necessidade vital de cada homem concreto.
Negando a Revelação externa ao homem, o modernismo confunde Deus com o vazio existencial de cada pessoa, e vende a imanência religiosa e o evolucionismo dos dogmas como verdadeira história das religiões. História de um afeto e das formas de vida que ele inspira.
A oposição superficial entre Ciência e Religião, que o modernismo fabrica, resulta em materialismo rasteiro e em subordinação da segunda à primeira, disfarçada de respeito à vida religiosa, como experiência subtraída do debate racional.
A razão não é mais capaz de enxergar, com o auxílio da Graça, as pegadas de Deus na ordem da natureza.
Presa no positivismo do mensurável, abdica do trono da alma humana e o caos dos afetos ocupa o vácuo de poder.
September 26, 2022
É uma encíclica brilhante. Dá algum trabalho ler, porque é escrita com linguagem da época e também porque é filosófica: obriga-nos mesmo a pensar no que estamos a ler.
O Papa Pio X procura combater o remediar o modernismo, que tem raízes profundas no agnosticismo. Descreve como ele infiltrou a filosófica, a teologia, a exegese e a história, entre outras coisas. E procura aplicar-lhe o remédio conveniente, que é a filosofia escolástica, aliada à Tradição e ao Magistério.
Diria que o esforço de ler, para mim, foi recompensador: apesar da descrição em cima poder parecer desinteresse e distante a um mero leigo, há algumas coisas na vida da Igreja de hoje que parecem ter raízes no modernismo, e eu nunca tinha dado conta disso. Abriu-me os olhos e melhorou a minha vida e a minha maneira de pensar.
Pode ser que seja assim também, ou ainda melhor, para alguém que se interesse por lê-la.
Obrigado S. Pio X :)
O Papa Pio X procura combater o remediar o modernismo, que tem raízes profundas no agnosticismo. Descreve como ele infiltrou a filosófica, a teologia, a exegese e a história, entre outras coisas. E procura aplicar-lhe o remédio conveniente, que é a filosofia escolástica, aliada à Tradição e ao Magistério.
Diria que o esforço de ler, para mim, foi recompensador: apesar da descrição em cima poder parecer desinteresse e distante a um mero leigo, há algumas coisas na vida da Igreja de hoje que parecem ter raízes no modernismo, e eu nunca tinha dado conta disso. Abriu-me os olhos e melhorou a minha vida e a minha maneira de pensar.
Pode ser que seja assim também, ou ainda melhor, para alguém que se interesse por lê-la.
Obrigado S. Pio X :)
July 4, 2025
Containing perhaps the fiercest condemnation of modernism within the Catholic Church, St. Pius X does not shy away from calling it 'the synthesis of all heresies'. Many essays and even books have been written about this historical encyclical, so there's little I can add. Still, one thing is particularly noteworthy. Corresponding to the title, St. Pius X writes like a true pastor: solemn and stern, yet full of paternal compassion and care for the salvation of souls in potential peril of being led astray. Alas, this style of papal writing has not appeared for a long time. When will popes and bishops begin to write again like spiritual fathers rather than institutional superiors with a kind of nearly bureaucratic politeness? I hope and pray that day won't be too far away.
April 21, 2018
É fundamental entender que Pio X está se dirigindo principalmente aos modernistas dentro da própria Igreja, ou seja, está preocupado com a deformação que a fé estava sofrendo por seus próprios fiéis, inclusive sacerdotes, motivados pelo orgulho e amor a novidades. Para mostrar que compreendia o fenômeno, o Papa apresenta um diagnóstico preciso e detalhado dos erros modernistas, tais como o agnosticismo, evolucionismo, imanentismo e desfiguração da fé. O ateísmo, a negação de Deus, era uma consequência lógica dos princípios filosóficos que são base da modernidade.
January 11, 2023
Good intro to the heresy of Modernism. He tried to stamp it out, but since the 1940s it has since taken over the seminaries and now the Catholic Church as a whole. Some of what he says is very 1907, but some of it still applies over a 100 years later. Modernists think newer is better and trust scientists and scholars and, most of all, their feelings, over traditional Christianity.
July 12, 2024
What shall a man say? This work is just as relevant today as it was when written; that which is discussed herein may even exacerbated within our contemporary society. Lest men fall into great error, it be prudent they neglect the whims of their own conscience, and heed the remarks of the great Pope Saint Pius X.
March 30, 2025
Incredible encyclical. I immediately distrust anyone that prior to espousing a modern philosophical or theological opinion in disagreement with St. Thomas says, “he was right on a lot of things, but….” St. Pope Pius X says they’re suspect. ✅ Modernism is poison. Protestantism> Modernism > full blown atheism. Real.
November 3, 2017
Indispensable for understanding the wealth and deep understanding of Latin in Church
I feel that if we persevere in learning Latin it will bring us into the ancient and Holy truths of Holy Mother Church and bring us into a richer state off Saintly holiness.
I feel that if we persevere in learning Latin it will bring us into the ancient and Holy truths of Holy Mother Church and bring us into a richer state off Saintly holiness.
February 27, 2020
Classic Papal Encyclical
If you want to know about Modernism, this is the papal document to read. Clear and concise. It gives you all that you need to know about Modernism in this brief document.
If you want to know about Modernism, this is the papal document to read. Clear and concise. It gives you all that you need to know about Modernism in this brief document.
July 1, 2023
A most important text for ALL Catholics in this modern crisis. Slightly difficult to read at times with a challenging translation from the original Latin, but incredibly important to stick with it and read one of the defining texts of this Saintly Pope’s Pontificate.
January 24, 2018
5 stars- goes without saying; a must read to understand the Church today.
May 14, 2018
I just read this from the Vatican website, I do not think the edition marked is accurate.
August 18, 2022
Essential anti-Modernist perfection!
Unadulterated truth!
Equip yourselves for the battle of your lifetime!
~Interregnum~
Unadulterated truth!
Equip yourselves for the battle of your lifetime!
~Interregnum~
May 12, 2023
Modernism is lame
September 26, 2023
Very good explanation of the Woke movement.
April 11, 2024
Two stars as in: it was ok.
March 14, 2021
Hard to follow at times because it discusses such a complex issue, but it's a very informative work on the life of the Roman Catholic Church and her struggles with fighting heresy.
December 21, 2014
Written by one of the greatest popes of the last 500 years, this is an indictment of the papacy and magisterium of the last 50 years. It is hard not to notice the clearly condemned statements and ideas explained by St Pius X are now considered normal and unassailable by most Catholics (including most clergy). Reading papal documents from before the Council can cause you a lot of confusion and consternation if you are willing to notice some obvious differences between then and now. Maybe we shouldn't read anything written before 1965 in order to protect our New Conciliar faith. Reading Pius X is an act of revolution and schism it seems; just ask Marcel Lefebvre.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews