Disfiguring the Catholic Church • (Pascendi #2)

the following program was made possible by the generosity of those who have determined to hold fast to the traditional Catholic faith and religion as professed and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church before the disasters of the Second Vatican Council and the so called new order of Mass hello and welcome to what Catholics believe this is the second part of the treatment of st. Pius the tense and cyclical push ng de Medici gracious condemning the errors of the modernists in the first part of the treatment of the encyclical kishan d talked about st. Pius the tense referring to modernists and modernism as the greatest threat to the faith the greatest threat to the church that the church has ever known in fact we might actually say with good reason that the modernists are building our busy building the anti church to be the church of the Antichrist that might seem a little bit extreme until you read the encyclical of st. Pius the tenth all the way through and then you understand the gravity of the situation well the first part talked about st. Pius the tense grave concern for the threat that modernism and the modernists posed to the church he said it is the greatest threat the church has ever known it's time that the Catholic people take note of st. Pius attends concerned and make it their own and realize how grave the situation is only then can we understand the current crisis that the church is going through and understand that it is not the Catholic Church that has done these evil things but it is the modernists who have seized power and control in the structure of the church now as I mentioned last time finishing on my first part st. Pius the tenth gives us the division of the encyclical that he's writing here he calls the modernists by their proper name modernist and says that they are commonly and rightly call by this name he says they employ the clever artifice by presenting their ideas in a confused manner and this is to number one ward off being charged with basically the heresies that are inherent in their system but also to make it look as though they're rather tentative about the beliefs and that they're still open to put unquote dialogue about them which they're not but also to throw off the trail anybody who would analyze their beliefs and show how heretical they are so Sinn Fein is the tenth said that he wanted to bring together into one grouping their teachings the essential principles of modernism and point out the connection between the Pradas the the principles and show that they are actually a cohesive system a very anti-catholic coherent system and then to examine the sources of the errors and also to prescribe the remedies for averting the evil that they threaten against the church and continuing then I mentioned that st. Pius the tenth said that in order to proceed in an orderly manner in considering modernism we have to look at the modernist and his his various roles or personalities he says every monitor sustains and comprises with himself many personalities so surprise the tenth distinguished the modernist as a philosopher and as a believer and as a theologian as an historian as a critic as an apologist and as a reformer these seven roles the seven as he called them personalities so st. Pius the tenth is going to look at each one of these in turn and explain the thinking that goes into the mind of the modernist starting with the modernist as a philosopher and he goes on to talk about the different roles as they are distinguished from one another he starts by talking about the agnosticism of the modernist as a philosopher and so you see the heading in the Vatican's own sight it giving us this encyclical de peche nd the introduction to this section 6 6 is agnosticism and it's philosophical foundation and so st. Pius the tenth says we begin then with the philosopher says modernists placed the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is usually called agnosticism now this is where people begin to cloud over a little bit because most people haven't really had an introduction to philosophy let alone the philosophy the philosophical concept of agnosticism I mean the word agnostic is commonly used in the English language to designate someone who does not know whether there is a God or not okay but philosophically agnosticism means much more than that and the remember we're talking about the modernists now insofar as they are schooled in the Catholic faith insofar as they have a background in philosophy and theology which is why st. Pius the tenth says that they're so dangerous and we're talking about members of the clergy we're talking about those in the priesthood and we're not just talking about priests we're talking about bishops too but st. Pius the tenth was trying to bring back to their Catholic sense and they would not come so when we're talking about the modernist as a philosopher we're talking about kind of going into into deeper waters here were many many people who do not have that training are not really willing to go and not necessarily equipped to go so when we say when we coach st. Pius the tenth of saying the foundation of religious philosophy for the modernist lies in the doctrine called agnosticism we have to understand exactly what he means by that it's a technical term for philosophers and what it says is that human reason is in entirely confined within the field of phenomena now one hour we're talking about another philosophical concept phenomena that whole concept of the human reason being confined within the realm of phenomena gives a another ism besides agnosticism it gives us also phenomenalism and this is again where many people kind of lose their way it's important to understand these two concepts and I'll try to explain them a bit off-the-cuff but I hope that they what I say will be intelligible when they talk about the field of phenomena they're talking about the things that are perceptible to the senses okay this is what st. Pius attend says and he goes on to explain this he says first of all the human mind essentially is incapable of lifting itself up to God and of recognizing his existence so this is the first theory you might say the first principle of agnosticism which is based upon the idea that human reason is limited to mere phenomena that the human mind is incapable of lifting itself to God and have recognized the even the existence of God and certainly not recognizing the existence of God as their that existence of God is indicated by the things created now here we see exactly the denial of st. Paul's words to the Romans that we can know God through the things that he created the modernist denies that he says we must be agnostics in our way of thinking because human reason cannot decipher from the things created cannot decipher the existence of God will return to this ID in a minute secondly from this it is inferred by the not by the modernist that God can never be the direct object of science because science again is limited to the world of phenomena and because science is the application of reason to the things that are perceptible only to the senses and we can't learn from the things of the senses the things created anything about a creator that therefore science must be officially without God it must be godless and thirdly st. Pius attend says the modernist as an agnostic as a phenomena list must hold that God cannot be considered a subject of history that in terms of history or even historical science God has nothing no part God cannot be known and it would be a violation of of human reason actually to place God within science or understand in science any influence of God and fourthly a the conclusions continue to come from their basic principles of agnosticism and phenomenalism that given these premises that natural theology is completely done away with there was no such thing as natural theology that is born of human reason tails hotels in Greek means God and theology is speaking of God or the science of God there can be no science of God by the use of reason we can know nothing of God by reason is what the modernist is saying the motives of credibility I mean the motives of credibility which we learn from the Gospels are the miracles then our Lord worked and others too those are all stripped away you cannot have those they're not permitted in history and also external revelation God speaking to us through our power of understanding through our power of reason God making truths known to the human intellect impossible the human intellect cannot grasp these things and so the modernists have simply done away with any role of human reason in knowing truth of God divine revelation motifs of credibility and miracles even God's own existence his simplicity his infinity his goodness and all the other things that the Philosopher's can tell us about God the modernists simply completely throws them all away and says no we accept none of that discards them in utterly and by the way anyone who tries to pretend that the human intellect has any power to know of God to know his existence to know of his basic attributes anyone who claims of the human and light intellect has the power to know this for the things that God created it is dismissed as an intellectual list intellectualism is the term the modernists use to basically it's a pejorative to just dismiss anyone who would claim that the human intellect has the power of knowing anything about God even his existence now the churches formally condemned these ideas the first Vatican Council has defined the fact that the human intellect has the power to know of God his existence and his basic attributes and I read from the encyclical Ashley these are these are statements from Vatican 1 and these are these are dogmatic statements of Vatican 1 the first of it the first statement is this if anyone says that the one true God our Creator and Lord cannot be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made let him be anathema and this statement refers to st. Paul's own words and Sacred Scripture that God can be known from the things that he created this is from de reality on a canon one of Vatican the first Vatican Council let him be anathema is a condemnation saying let him be out of the church that have not been considered a Catholic he's actually mitigated from the church by a denial of faith he's a heretic if anyone says that the one true God our Creator and Lord cannot be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason by means of the things that are made exactly what the modernist deny let him be anathema so you begin to see right from the star here the analysis of the monitors thinking why sin pies the tenth ultimately comes to this statement that modernism is a synthesis of all heresies and he starts with this one there agnosticism denying something divinely revealed in Sacred Scripture and in sacred tradition that God can be known by the power of the even intellect secondly st. Pius the tenth quotes from the first Vatican Council again they revolutionary canon to if anyone says that it is not possible or not expedient that man be taught through the medium of divine revelation about God and the worship to be paid him let him be anathema again the modern is completely undercuts the idea of the human intellect receiving divine revelation let him be anathema and thirdly st. Pius the tenth quotes from the Apostolic from the dogmatic decree defeat a if anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs and that therefore men should be drawn to the faith only by their personal internal experience or by private inspiration let him be anathema so again on a third count modernism falls to the acts of truth here at the divine divine the revealed truth expounded here by the first Vatican Council if anyone says the divine revelation cannot be made credible by external science there you have the phenomenon there you have the phenomenal world that we live in the modernists say through the things that are created in other words that if we cannot arrive through the external creation at a knowledge of God if anyone should say that all therefore all we have left is faith as an experience a personal internal experience we're getting to that part of modernism that tries to supply for what they've just destroyed in the intellect but trying to supply it by experience personal experience Saint Pius the tenth is anticipating that it's as though the first Vatican Council was anticipating that back in 1869 in 1870 it's explicitly mentioned what the modernists would come to teach or by private inspiration let him be anathema here you have three hammer blows three hammer blows against the fundamental principle of modernism the place where the modernist begins with agnosticism that we cannot know God through the things that God created we could not know him by the power of human reason now it's important for us to realize the significance of this denial of the modernist this denial that human reason that the human mind can know God by its own natural powers it's important for us to see the significance of that denial because he read right in the first pages of Genesis that God created man and in his image and in his likeness and we we read in the Fathers of the Church and the theologians of the church that are approved by the authority of the church that would we seek a man being created in God's image we're referring to the fact that God made man's soul spiritual and immortal legality self but also endowed that soul with faculties powers the power of intelligence to know the truth to know what is truth not only individual truths but to know what truth itself is and that God gave man the power of will to know to love what is good there's the very nature of the will as a power by which God has endowed man with the ability to love what is good and that the intellect and the will working together enable us to enjoy what is beautiful this is what gives us what the philosopher is called the transcendentals the true the good and the beautiful truth goodness and beauty are exactly what we are created for is human beings and here we find the the image of God in man but you know that an image is something that is a kind of external it does not go to the very core of the being an image we might say that about a young boy his we say is the image of his father meaning that he appears he looks like his father so this makes us resemble God to be created in God's image but there is a way that we can be more like the God than merely by nature the nature of man to be body and soul soul immortal and in spiritual and endowed with the power of knowing and loving truth and goodness and enjoying what is beautiful you see God has also made us he made Adam and Eve in his likeness and the likeness goes beyond the mere image when we say of a child he is that in the very likeness of his father we might even say that's true of a way of a statue or a bust we might say well that's a very good likeness in the sense that we say it's a good image it has an appearance that looks or resembles this other person the the bust of Julius Caesar for example might resemble as an image the the the one who was its subject but the likeness goes deeper when we say someone is like his father we don't just say he appears outwardly to resemble his father when we say somebody is like his father we're referring to the things about his character the way he expresses himself the thoughts and so on like father like son means that it's not just an image who may have the same freckles the same red hair the same large hands or whatever it is of the father now we're talking about an image at a likeness and a likeness that goes deeper in the person that makes him resemble the father not just in the way he appears but the way he acts the way he thinks the way he expresses himself and so when in Sacred Scripture II read that God made man at its image and likeness we're saying that by nature God made man in His image but by likeness he gave him grace divine grace and of course Adam and Eve our first parents lost that lightness to God but the image of nature remains there man still has an immortal soul spiritual and with the powers of knowing truth and love and goodness and enjoying beauty beauty and when we're talking about the human intellect by nature we're talking about the human reason the power of reason by nature we're talking about that that image of God and man that is there by Nature the modernist destroys that the modernist actually destroys what is there by nature in man of God the modernist as it were destroys the connection between the mind and reality and the human intellects the human reasons power to know truth is the first thing that the modernist destroys in in severing the human mind the human reason from the power of knowing truth by saying that we are immersed only in a world of appearances the modernist may as well say that we exist in a world of illusions because the mind can never attain truth even about the things in the world around us we have only the appearances of things we cannot attain to the truth of anything anything in the world even around us this is the work of agnosticism which is born of phenomenalism but the root is phenomenalism which st. Pius the tenth refers to which is the the philosophy the root philosophy of the modernist we have to realize the damage that this does in severing the human mind from truth and reality not only has man by sin severed that that likeness of God that was in him by grace but now the modernist would ever actually sever that tie even by nature of the human intellect from God and subsequently of course the love of truth because the itself is the rational faculty it is tied to reason and the intellect is what presents to the will what is good to be loved if you take that connection between the human intellect and reality away then the will is completely unfettered and even the concept of beauty you see this in the modernists you see what they've done all you have to do is go to Saint Peter's Basilica and look at the doors that John the 23rd and Paul the sixth hung on the front of the Basilica see if you have any semblance of beauty in these hideous things well this is true all the way through a modernism he had not only severe it severs the intellect from reality it destroys the Wills necessary love for beauty and goodness and this is what we see operative in the modernist church we see the modernists and what they've done to the morality the goodness of the soul and we see what the modernist has done to even the arts and the beauty that should be there it's chilling to realize that this this this disease of the mind this disease of the mind this pathology of the mind begins with this divorcing of the mind from truth the very image of God and man this is what is being addressed here Ashley I hope I haven't been too obscure that you can actually follow what I'm saying here I should have it written down word for word and I don't but I hope that you can follow the gravity of this error of modernism why st. Pius the tenth starts there and develops the whole modernist system and all the modernist conclusions from this this basically severing of the human mind from the image of God that is there in the now being the ability to know what is true it is not only it goes a lot deeper than that remember st. st. quite a saint st. Augustine I beg your pardon Saint Augustine was looking for this image of God in man not only in so far as God is one divinity but insofar as he is three divine persons and st. Augustine found that image of God in man even insofar as God is three divine persons Father Son and Holy Ghost and he found that that image of God in man not only as the unity of the divine essence but as the Trinity of persons in God he found that in the faculties the very faculties of the soul that were talking about so the modernist destroys the image of God in man not only insofar as God is unity of nature and in unity of essence but insofar as God is imaged in man as Trinity of persons in the faculties of man this is a horrible thing to do and is going to necessarily yield terrible results we see those results now played out before us in the modern church the Novus Ordo created by the modernists I'll move on st. Pius the tenth says that the modernist make a transition from their agnosticism to a state of pure innocence what does that mean well non Shen SIA means literally not knowing so the modernist go from this idea of well there's just we don't we don't know about God his existence is on they go from that state of pure non knowing to a scientific atheism and an historical atheism they say that since we can't know God by virtue of the phenomena the appearances of things that as they come to the human mind then when we're doing science because science is entirely about the phenomenal world in which we live they say the world of appearance is then when it comes to science or history which is a form of science they say then officially we have to state they're atheists so they start by saying we can't know about God from phenomenal things to saying well because when we're dealing with the phenomena then our science and our history have to rule out the possibility of anything of God his existence is influenced anything at all so they turn everything around immediately from one step of denial of nisshin's and not knowing to another step of what he calls positive denial it's not just an absence of knowledge here we have in history here we have in human science an absolute statement of refusal of denial but ruling out any existence or any possibility of God and again it goes right down to the fact that they go from this non knowing to this complete denial in the category of human thought natural human thought rule out so they decide that in anything scientific or anything historical they have to ignore God altogether it would be a serious violation of the principles of their science in their history to allow God any role at all in except insofar as that he's a phenomenon he's a phenomenon he appears in history only as a phenomenon and one that is totally uncalled for and st. Pius the tenth goes on to say yet it is a fixed and established principle among the modernists that both science and history must be atheistic that's a ground-rule principle of this and within the boundaries of science and history there is room for nothing but phenomena I just said that st. Pius the tenth repeats it God and all that His divine are utterly excluded that statement sums up his whole point everything in modernist system of science and history excludes God as an absolute sacred principle if they believe in any sacred that's it and we're going to we're going to soon see the consequences how does this play out then how does this play out in matters of faith how can modernists even talk about faith and how can they talk about religion how can they talk about church how can they even talk about Jesus Christ how can they talk about that with their fundamental principles absolutely excluding the very possibility of knowing anything about these things well here's when you get to the heading in the encyclical of vital imminence you see the modernists have to come somehow explain how since in history and in science we have to have an absolute ironclad atheism the modernist has to explain how in human history there is such a thing as faith how there is religion how there is Church they have to explain where it comes from it certainly cannot come from the intelligence and so st. st. Pius the tenth goes on to explain in section section section seven that agnosticism though is only the negative part of the system of Auditors and he says there's a positive side and the positive side he says consists of the principle of vital imminence now I know again you know people who haven't had the basics in theology or philosophy might check out vital imminence this is getting a little too deep it's not it's not too deep it just explains how they go from one thing to another it's actually the bridge that they cross to get from their absolute denial of any natural knowledge of God that we can have - how in fact there is such a thing as a very idea of God how there is religion says religion whether a natural or supernatural must like every other fact admitted some explanation I mean he says natural theology has been destroyed so you can't have religion as the work of the human mind he says the road to Revelation was cut off by the rejection of arguments of credibility again through the human intelligence that's been destroyed he says all external revolution has been absolutely revelation has been absolutely denied by the modernists so where on earth do we get this very clear phenomenon of religion in human existence as a kind of historical curiosity where does it come from then then he says it is clear that the explanation for the existence of religion any notion of God in human history in the human mind has to be sought somewhere else has to be found somewhere else than in man's mind he says it must be looked for in man it comes out of man somewhere it certainly not is not in the world around us we've already ruled that out so it has to come from somewhere inside man himself it's not in history can't be in historical developments it can't be in science nothing of phenomena speak to us of God at least nothing that we can discern as God somehow it has to come out of the life of man's in pious attend says the explanation must be found in the life of man and this is what the mutt where the modernist goes with this he says therefore the principle of religious imminence is formulated by the modernist what does it mean well you have in the life of man what they call these these vital phenomena okay and man produces these things himself and the first actuation of this vital phenomenon of man and religion and religion as this phenomenon which is produced by man from man but not from his mind belongs to this category of things due to a certain necessity or impulsion so the first thing he tells us about the modernist way of looking at this is okay since we've ruled out the idea that the human intellect to the human mind has any connection with religion or God or faith or anything of the kind and yet we see in human history the phenomenon of religion the phenomenon of God the phenomenon of Church and dominant of faith that man has to produce this just out of himself it doesn't come from the world around him and so it has to be produced by and a need there's an impulsion in man he needs something beyond himself he needs something that ultimately he's going to call the divine man in a sense senses that there is something beyond himself he needs something beyond himself and that need is going to trigger something in him so st. Pius the tenth says that this category of phenomena notion of God religion faith whatever is due to a certain necessity or and Paul says so he says the modernist finds that these things have their origin more speaking he says more particularly of life in a movement of the heart not the mind the heart and that movement they call a sentiment so the notions of God and religion and faith and all the rest that follows from them all of these things follow from a sentiment they call it they may even call it the religious sentiment and since God is the object of religion he says we have to include that that faith which is the basis and foundation for all religion faith itself must consist in a sentiment which is moved by a need a need for what a basic human need for the divine they don't really define what that is actually they can't define what the divine is because it's up to each individual to define his own need what he needs here and how that need is filled but it's just the divine something okay and so here the modernist tells you that yes there is faith it cannot come from the mind has nothing to do with reason their intelligence it comes from a human need which moves a is something of the heart of man called a religious sentiment and that need kind of erupts into a kind of experience faith he says faith the modernist says the basis and foundation for all religion begins in the religious sentiment of Man which is impelled by some need for something divine whatever it is okay and he goes on to say that this divine is experienced experienced remember the word that's very important only in special and favorable circumstances so it's not as though you can experience the divine through your religious sense always in everywhere any more than you might feel the need always in everywhere for the vine but in your religious sentiment you as a human you as having the human condition you experience this need for the divine only under certain favorable and exceptionable circumstances but when you do feel that impulse of a need for the divine which is an experience of the heart not the mind then you can experience the divine for yourself in a unique way so st. Pius goes on and explains that you cannot of itself pertain to the domain of consciousness yet actually is latent that need for the divine that is going to erupt at times into feeling feeling this craving for the divine which is going to bring you an experience of the divine that is latent within you it is latent within your consciousness and same time same Pius the tenth actually appeals to an expression a term that was fairly recent in his own history the subconsciousness we think of Freud and the rest of them the Philosopher's the the the psychologists talk about a sub consciousness that's where the modernist says we find this religious sentiment which is always there in everyone with its need for the divine that expresses itself by in a sense making this leap of faith that the existentialists talk about and experiencing the divine something okay in fact many human readings don't even know it's there it's it's latent within them the religious sentiment is so latent within them that even atheists have it but they don't know it because the the need for the divine has not yet come to the fore has not yet taken a step forward and revealed itself to them but when it does what it does they too can have a unique personal experience of the divine and they experience this within them this is also a very important point but they experience the divine within their religious within their religious sentiment you and so st. Pius the tenth goes on shouldn't you want to ask how it is that this need of the divine which man experiences within himself rose up into a religion I mean how do we get from that how do we get from the idea that the modern is presenting to us that this this experience of the divine which is something of the human heart only it's not rational it's not intellectual it's not intelligence it's an experience it's a direct experience of the divine something how does it grow up into a religion the modernists again have to explain this because again faith and religion and the notion of gods all of these things have expressed themselves in the realm of phenomena so the modernist has to explain where they come from if they don't come from the mind the monitor says they come from the heart leading the divine the religious sentiment then experiences the divine you know a very unique and special way for each individual the modernist says that science and history are confined within the limits the one limit is external like the physical visible world and the other limit of science and the and history is human consciousness and st. Pius says that according to modernists when a person reaches the limit of this external boundary of the phenomena around him and reaches the internal limit of his consciousness there can be no further progress so we have our science and our history basically limited by these two things are internal limits of consciousness and our external limit of the phenomena around us and outside of that beyond that is the unknowable we cannot go beyond the knowledge of the phenomena around us our intellect comes to that limit of the phenomena we witness or experience in the world the intellect cannot go beyond those what lies out sort of those is the unknowable but even inside us where we have our consciousness beyond the realm of our own consciousness lies the unknowable we can't know beyond those two things he says and when we come up to those that lose those limitations internally and externally we find that we want to go beyond those limits but beyond them is the unknowable that can be known by the by the mind by the conscious human mind now we're getting to the area of the unknowable which is the realm of the divine how do we get beyond those limits of what is conscious inside us and the phenomenon around us how do we get beyond them have to experience them that is where the religious sentiment comes in we experience the reality that is beyond that if it is reality that's another question see and so there's where the need for the divine comes in we crave to know what is beyond the limits of our conscious minds and what we can experience here in this world so there the needs of the divine excites in the soul actually that subconscious need and that subconscious sentiment suddenly arise awakened as it were into that need we need to know what is beyond the limits of our existence and that excites in the soul what it was st. Pius calls a propensity toward religion this excites a special sentiment within this not within the mind but within the heart the heart is what has to go beyond the limitations of the human mind the phenomenon the conscious around us the consciousness within us and so even though the mind itself hasn't been thinking about this thing the mind itself can't even detect these things when we're talking about the subconscious something in the subconscious that is so latent it needs something to trigger it and it is that need we experience as though it's like a cry in the hearts and honest that we feel ourselves bound in by these limitations that we need more and so it is by this special sentiment in our human hearts that we can experience the reality of the divine by crossing the by breaking out of those boundaries now whether it is our own religious sentiment bursting those boundaries or whether it is the divine something breaking through those boundaries into our sub consciousness isn't other questions in Pius the tenth himself says churning of the answer that question determines whether you're a pantheist or not he says whether that divine reality that divine is really something outside of us or whether it's just something within us he says that's something the modernist doesn't really want to get into that anyway he says the fact is the modernists all regardless of how they answered the question whether the divine is something real outside of us or just something we're experiencing within ourselves he says we regardless of whether the modernist answers a question or how he answers it this is the basic mechanism by which the modernist says we can burst the bounds of our worldly existence burst the bones of our country conscious existence to experience the unknowable divine beyond what our minds can know and he says it is this sentiment to which the modernists give the name of faith and this is it this it is which they consider the beginning of religion he says okay see he says that modernism finds in the sentiment not only faith but with faith and in faith as they understand it this is for them revelation they regard that this sentiment enables us to actually experience the divine that is beyond consciousness and beyond the phenomena all the phenomena of this world it is through this religious sentiment and its craving at its need we've we see that the modernist says that faith is actually an experience he's going to get into that a bit more later which the modernists actually referred to as the faith experience it's not a matter of a man accepting revelation that is given to him through his intelligence to understand truth that is not it at all the modernist has ruled that out even the possibility of it and he substitutes this cry of the heart which brings men through his religious sentiment in some kind of contact with the divine not only outside himself but beyond himself even anything he can know and that experience is something personal and it is real and it is true for each individual it is true what he experiences of the divine he's his own personal truth of his own personal faith you will see in the writings of john paul ii for example a persistent reference to the faith experience the faith experience the faith experience now this is the language of modernism and we find it in john paul's concept of faith is that it is an experience this is quintessential modernism okay don't be surprised when you read that you may say well what does he mean by that he means exactly what they're saying but st. Pius the tenth is condemning here in modernist lore that is a belief that faith is an experience of the heart okay of the religious sentiment and st. Pius the tenth here in number eight of the encyclical is talking about the connection between the religious sentiment and the needed experiences divine the unknowable and how that is satisfied only by this religious experience that the sentiment has and how is that tied together with divine revelation well actually they're saying that the religious sentiment becomes conscious it actually brings into the realm of consciousness this divine experience and that is what it becomes revelation as though the divine reveals itself to the to the religious sentiment by this experience and that revealing of itself is revelation so they've totally changed the very definition of revelation by saying that that moment of call it inspiration whatever you want the moment of contact of the Devon of the human need expressed in the religious sentiment coming in contact as they say kind of contact with the divine outside of consciousness and things of this world that is the revelation of the and when it comes into consciousness and therefore they say and this is what st. Pius attend says here that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous the the coming into consciousness of that experience of the divine is revelation it's what they're saying they equate religious consciousness with Revelation again the consequences of these things are mind-boggling as to what the kind of religion comes out of these principles it is not Catholicism they're redefining all the terms they're redefining the meaning of faith they may use the word faith they don't mean what the Catholic Church means at all they're redefining the word revelation they may use the word revelation it does not mean to them what it means to Catholics it doesn't mean to them what it means to the Catholic Church so here they come to even the supreme authority of the church he says in number eight of the encyclical whether it's the same supreme authority of the Catholic Church the actual Catholic Church in its external teaching capacity or in the capacity of a legislature and the province of Sacred Liturgy or discipline regardless they they say that they put all of these things on an equal footing the individuals personal experience of the divine with the teaching authority of the church the teaching authority of the church has no more authority over them than their own personal experience of the divine that is to them actually it even comes first their personal experience has more power and more authority over them than anything the church might say to them and you might say well well what's behind that remember that the church and faith and all the rest are all phenomena it's a it's coming into their consciousness all of these things have now entered their consciousness you see so you can't say that one thing has more authority over them than the other because now these are all suddenly because they're within the realm of consciousness suddenly they all become phenomena and they're all more or less in the same footing but there's more to this I mean I realize that that might you might get lost with that idea but just kind of put that in the back of your mind for a minute and it still threat to stay with me but try to stay with st. Pius the tenth how he's trying to explain the consequences of the principles that they're enunciated here then the next step st. Pius the tenth says with this idea of faith being this experience of some unknowable divine but just kind of verbal door bubbled up in their consciousness to answer their need is to take this this what this divine that has revealed itself II suddenly in their consciousness and to transform it and to dis disfigure it saying Pius the tenth talks about what happens next in the modernist mind he says again we're following the modernist way of thinking of how to explain religion how to explain Church now you have to keep in mind here that this is the modernist way of explaining the Catholic Church this is the modernist way of explaining Jesus Christ the modernist is trying to explain these phenomena faith in Christ how does the modernists explain these things well this is the start of how the modernist starts explaining to himself where Jesus Christ came from and who he is where the church came from this is how the modernist explains not only where all religion comes from all faiths all Church all all great religious figures this is that where the modernist sees Jesus Christ and how the modernist sees the Catholic Church that's what we're interested here and that is what st. Pius the tenth is primarily trying to explain what does the modernist make of the Catholic Church what does the modernist make of the Catholic religion what does a modernist make of the founder of the Catholic religion Jesus Christ that's where we're going with this and this is how we see where the modernist winds up with the anti-catholic religion which is going to be the religion of the Antichrist the modernist goes on to say therefore under this heading deformation of religious history and the consequence in number nine he says that this whole thing is a process we again we have to realize that this experience that the vine is part of a process which is going on in the heart the religious sentiment religion of faith and revelation spring from this very process and he says one point is of capital importance for the modernists on account of the the historical results I mean how we historically view Christ how we historically view the Church they say the the unknowable that they talked about was divine which reveals itself does not just come into the consciousness all by itself it brings in it has to bring into human consciousness in order to be even make it conscious make it self conscious it has to bring phenomena because the human mind can only think in these terms the human mind can think only in terms of phenomenon of the phenomenon and therefore in order for the religious experience the experience of the devine to even enter into human consciousness it has to come clothed in some phenomena and that's a very important point he says for the modernist to say that because faith is expressed in phenomena in things that a man can amend mayans mind can relate to this is what erupts into a man's life then erupting into his consciousness he finds the faith experience kind of burbles up in like almost like contained within a bubble but the bubble is the phenomenon so to speak he sees it's something he can see no it's something he can touch it's something he can taste in something he can imagine no it has brought itself within the realm of his thought ok of his consciousness in in the phenomenon I know that might seem obscure but when you see where we're going with it it will all become very clear where the modernist is going the modernist says no as soon as that experience of the Divine which we call faith has expressed itself in some sort of phenomenon they're closed itself in some sort of external phenomenon I mean even in terms of things you can imagine sort of like think of the clothes itself tin the phenomena now the mind gets to work now the mind gets to work on the experience this is where the intelligence starts coming in here and start playing with this experience starts expressing its experience first of all by transfiguring it it transfigures the phenomenon so the way that the religious experience of the experience of mind manifests itself in the consciousness immediately puts itself within the realm of human thought and the human thought begins to play with it and Yuman thought wants to kind of make much of it was to develop the thought and it still it kind of transfigures that experience it transfigures that experience into something that is not quite the same as the experience of the divine itself so the divine whatever that has manifested itself by this experience now finds that it is immediately being transformed by the human mind into something else which is the kind of development which only more or less corresponds to the divine itself now you begin to see a process again in the modernist mind that says even even the experience we have of the divine of the religious sentiment has to undergo kind of a change that a metameric metamorphosis even for the mind to think about it and that metamorphosis it doesn't really correspond to the original experience or the divine that caused it so now we're taking one step away from the divine in the first step of the human mind in dealing with this experience and not only that but there's a second step the mind not only transfigures the experience into something else but then the mind takes the transfigured thing and disfigures it so what the mind winds up with becomes almost a caricature of the original experience it doesn't actually a corresponding it's two steps removed from what the divine really was so what becomes of faith when the mind begins trying to think about it when the mind begins trying to process it when the human being begins trying to understand faith the faith experience he immediately transfigures it and then disfigures it what becomes a faith then what does he got left he says from these two principles the modernist deduced two laws I know we're going from this to that the other thing to this and that the other thing two laws principles the cetera et cetera but this is the way the modernist mind works this is how they come up with in the end this whole process by which we say this is the church this is this is the people this is faith this is so on and so forth this is religion they're still working on trying to figure out how we come to religion here and here's what they say there are two principles that give rise to two laws the principle of Transfiguration the principle of disfigurement give rise to two laws and when we circle back to unite it with a third then we got from agnosticism that we can't really know the phenomenon then we all we know rather I'm sorry all we know is the phenomena we can't know really anything of God he says now we came up with the three principles that give rise to the modernist as a historical critic which we're going to talk about later but he just says look we were already laying the groundwork for the word the modernist is going with this and here he gets to the the question of Christ this is very important though because I think all of its going to come together if you've stayed with me this long I think when we apply these ideas to the person of Christ you're going to see how significant these ideas are they say the modernists say that science and history in the actual person and life of Christ encounter nothing except what is purely human remember science and history according to agnosticism according to the fund of the basic mindset of the modernist ruling out any any sense of God or or the supernatural that when we look at Christ as a person we cannot see anything of him except what is merely human and so in virtue of their agnosticism they have to absolutely rule out in the life of Jesus Christ in the very prayer of Jesus Christ anything that would suggest the divine and so on anything and according to their second idea that they're trying to explain where the the concept of Christ as being more than human actually came from so the modernist what he's asked okay well if you because of the agnostic start rule out anything divine or supernatural in Christ that he was merely merely human where does the idea that Christ was not merely human come from well they say we can explain this from the idea of this Transfiguration we just told you about the human mind in having the faith experience immediately the thought of of Jesus transmogrifies itself in a way into the level of phenomena now we're talking about the things of this world and so what faith the faith experience the next step is to transfigure the concept of Christ by which we know him through the phenomena that comes into our mind so that we can even think about him so we can even think about this experience and once we get that experience and we associate that the concept of Jesus with our human concepts these phenomena we start transfiguring them and so we take the historical person of Jesus there was nothing more than an exceptional human being and we transfigure that that that our notion of that exceptional human being into a concept of Christ now he's gone from being Jesus to being Christ in a sense transfigured by faith into something superhuman so we started reading into the things that he does and we start seeing superhuman powers at work in him miraculous powers to him that he's more than mere man is more than mere mortal man so the modernist will say that you take a miracle for example the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes to feed the thousands in the in the wilderness and the modernist says well this is the result of our transfiguring him and lending a significance to this event which was not really there if they're only in the process of our transfiguring this faith experience of Christ the real the historical reality was that Jesus moved the minds and the hearts of his disciples to share the food they already had and so when the Gospel says they have no food what it means is they had no food for each other they had no food that they would share they had food but they were not willing to bring it out in a sense moved by a faith experience Jesus the man moved them to share this food that was the miracle it was a moral miracle not a real substantial miracle so to speak and so the early faith community saw this as a miracle of Jesus and they transfigured it then into the idea well he created food by a supernatural power this is the mind working on the on the the mere natural moral mere miracle of Jesus though and then the next step though of the mind in lending supernatural powers to Jesus to begin the process of turning him into Christ is the process of disfigurement now the memory of Jesus is disfigured Jesus was transfigured in the mind of the disciples during his life but upon his death now his memory is disfigured and it is disfigured by not only making him more than mere man and attributing some supernatural powers to him now we disfigure the memory of Christ by making him God this is faith this is what faith does the act of faith the the revelation of the divine entering into consciousness begets this process of faith faith is a process remember but to the to the to the modernist by which the human mind transfigures and disfigures then first transfigures and then disfigures the very concept of Jesus as man and so the modernist distinguishes between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith the Jesus of history was born of the Virgin Mary suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified died and was buried end of story that's the end of Jesus of history the Jesus of the G the Christ now the Christ of faith is what emerges from the tomb at the resurrection the Christ of faith where Christ begins living in that memory of those who now carry on his own faith experience as his disciples Christ lives on only in that faith experience in others and they have transfigured as the Apostles and his disciples transfigured him during life so the faithful to this day disfigure his memory by making him God and so when the modernist as a historian wants to find out who Jesus really was he has to strip away all the supernaturally all the disfigurement all the transfigure meant as it were strip it all away to come back to the basic historical reality of who Jesus of history really was he was a carpenter's son no more no less but he had a particularly powerful faith experience which alone distinguished him from the rest of mankind it's the same kind of religious experience that distinguished the great religious founders Muhammad Moses Abraham Zoroaster Buddha they were all merely human but they excelled in the in the sensitivity and the power of their religious sentiment and their need for the divine which led to them having particularly powerful experiences of the divine but then their minds like all human minds began to transfigure and to disfigure at that experience into what they call the faith experience but you have to wait here because faith is further disfigured it disfigured into one in two propositions again phenomena we have to express this faith in statements and those statements then become dogmas of religion and religion itself is a further distortion of the original faith experience and that helps to explain a little bit already why you would see the modernist would say that the faith experience of mankind continues in each and every one of us and because the faith experience of others who've gone before us was not the last word on truth it was just a revelation to an individual who shared it with others because it was so powerful that now all of these experiences all being true to one extent or another and now all of them the truth of them guaranteed by the fact that they have continued down to the present day because they are vital experiences all of the experiences of Jesus of Moses of Buddha of Zoroaster all of these powerful experiences which were selling unique to these individuals the very fact that they are all true is guaranteed by the fact that we still have these in the world today people living off that faith experience of the past of these various great personages all of these faith experiences now are all converging and we're all going to converge in base basically into one common faith experience you see where this is leading now okay I'm glad the same points the tent took that section 9 to explain where these very Airy and gaseous ideas actually we're leading when you apply them to the person of our Lord then you begin to see just how deadly they are to all real faith and why modernism is the anti faith which will give rise to the anti Church the Novus Ordo which will give rise to the Anti Christ and Lobby just to finish by looking at section 10 a push nd which kind of draws it draws all this together Saint Vyas offense says therefore the religious sentiment which through the agency of vital imminence that is the religious sentiment in the life of man each each man each individual man living his life this vital imminence this religious sentiment emerges from the lurking places of the subconsciousness it is the seed of all religion or you might even say it is the soil in which the seed the religious experience is planted it is the explanation of everything that has been or ever will be religion so the modernist leans back and says therefore you see I have explained to you where religion comes from I've explained to you after telling you where it doesn't come from it doesn't come from an external divine relay in Revelation in the human mind that's impossible it Wells up within man by vital imminence from his own his own personal religious sentiment his own need for the divine because he's come to the limits of his existence and he needs to go beyond that and the unknowable then manifests itself to him as a divine that original experience then entering into his consciousness now begins to be expressed in phenomena and this is what happens it is transfigured it is disfigured and this is why each man comes up with his own you might say his own personal religion for his own personal experience it's all true since the 10th says the sentiment which was at first only very very formless he says gradually matures under the influence of progress of human life and grows into a religion there's like the seed of a religion that is planted there if that experience withers and dies it had no vital power it did not have enough truth to remain but if it continues on as the Catholic religion it as the experience of Jesus Christ continued on in his disciples it has vital power within it the same is true of Islam the same is true of Buddhism he says all religion finds its origin there every existing religion finds his origin in this he and the modernist says he says the Catholic religion is not an exception he says it is quite on the level with the rest what st. Pius attends says here because the Catholic religion was engendered by this same process the pride Allah the process of vital imminence in the consciousness of Christ our Lord Himself a man had this need for the divine and experienced the limits of his consciousness and the world our end is is contact with her world around him he experienced the divine and the process began in him of expressing it and that's where all Christianity came from him here's what st. Pius the tenth says about these things he says these are sacrilegious assertions they are shocking to a Catholic he says that they're not merely the foolish babblings of infidels there are Catholics and he says priests who in his day were already openly professing these things and they were boasting at that time that they were going to reform the Catholic Church according to these ideas st. Pius attempt calls them the translation is to reform the church by these ratings now what does st. Pius the tenth spoke as he did and I wonder he wrote the sensational condemning this he saw then in principle what you and I are seeing now he saw in the very principles and the very egg but the monster that you and I now see as the Novus Ordo he says the modernist was even then affirming that our most holy religion in the man is in the man Christ as in us emanated from nature spontaneously and entirely and thus there is surely nothing more destructive of the whole supernatural order of faith a religion than this and so he quotes he at the end of section 10 he quotes that the first Vatican Council saying if anyone says that man cannot be raised by God to a knowledge and perfection which surpasses nature that is human nature but that he can and should by his own efforts and by a constant development attained finally to the possession of all truth and good let him be anathema again we find all the way already in Vatican to the condemnation of the principles of modernism and st. Pius the tenth basing himself upon that the teaching of the Catholic Church condemns modernism even in the womb as being a monster the next step is for the modernists to explain where doctrines and dogmas come from you remember what Frances have said he has very little used for dogma he finds us that dogma is rigid and unchanging he says we have to abandon that concept of the even of the papacy itself even the church's faith teaching of the papacy itself we have to abandon that and go to a new model take a new road for the papacy that's what we're going to get into next time thanks for staying with me I know it's been a kind of a rocky road now and maybe you have gone to extremes to try to make the unknowable knowable it's like talk about the doctrines of the modernist is something basically unfit for the human mind really is unfit for even mind but I just wanted to either to understand their ideas enough to follow the path set out by Sentai and pious attempt to understand how they arrived at their conclusions and to understand that their conclusions are exactly what modernism is and exactly what went to st. happening today in the modernist Church of Vatican 2 and it's Novus Ordo god bless you I'll see you next time you

Channel: What Catholics Believe

Views: 9,309

Rating: 4.9238095 out of 5

Keywords: apologist, believer, critic, distortion, faith experience, heart, historian, immanence, John XXIII, modernism, multiple personalities, philosopher, reformer, sentiment, synthesis of all heresies, theologian, Pascendi, Pascendi dominici gregis

Id: FlsN62Qgge4

Length: 81min 51sec (4911 seconds)

Published: Sun Oct 07 2018