Where is the NEW Theology Leading Us?


Where is the New Theology Leading Us?


La nouvelle théologie où va-t-elle?

[Statement of the Problem]

[First Issue]  1. Do the Dogmatic Formulæ Themselves Retain Their Immutability?

[Second Issue]  2. Application of New Principles to the Doctrines of Original Sin and the Eucharist

[Second Issue - Note 1]

[Second Issue - Note 2]

[Second Issue - Note 3]

Conclusion: Whither the New Theology?

End Notes for "Where is the New Theology Leading Us?"
Qualification of Seminary Professors - Canon 1366
Appendix 1:  Synod Vatican 2 was Hi-Jacked by Neo-Modernist NEW Theology Theologians

Appendix 2:  Only Eight of the NEW Theology Theologians

Appendix 3:  A Brief List of a Few of the Neo-Modernist NEW Theology Theologians

Appendix 4:  Classical Trademarks of Some Modernist Heretics and Sundry Purveyors of "Nouvelle Théologie", "The NEW Theology", a.k.a. "Neo-Modernism"

Appendix 5:  Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Humani Generis, Concerning Some False Opinions Threatening to Undermine The Foundations of Catholic Doctrine

Appendix 6:  Important Quotes

Father Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

Where is the New Theology Leading Us?
Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.


In 1946 an article appeared in the "Angelicum" by Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. [b. Auch, France 1877 A.D. - d. Rome, Italy, 1964 A.D.], who taught Dogmatic and Spiritual Theology for 53 years at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a.k.a. The Angelicum, in Rome, Italy.  Father's article is entitled "La nouvelle théologie où va-t-elle?" - "Where is the New Theology Leading Us?"

Below is the English translation of this excellent article by most probably one of the best Thomistic theologians of the 20th Century. In this article, Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. warned all Catholics that the "NEW Theology" is only the same old Heresy of Modernism which Pope Saint Pius X condemned in "Pascendi Dominici Gregis" - On the Doctrine of the Modernists - Sunday, September 8, 1907.

Because of its profundity, this excellent analysis is meant to be studied, not simply read.

This analysis will serve to unmask the Neo-Modernist NEW Theology - the "official theology" of Synod Vatican 2.  Unfortunately, the Neo-Modernist NEW Theology continues to be used even today because it is, at least "unofficially", required to be used by all of the Roman Catholic Clergy!

La nouvelle théologie où va-t-elle?
Where is the New Theology Leading Us?

[Statement of the Problem]

In a recent book, Conversion et gràce chez S. Thomas d'Aquin [1] ("Conversion and Grace in St. Thomas Aquinas"), Father Henri Boulliard writes:

"Since spirit evolves, an unchanging truth can only maintain itself by virtue of a simultaneous and co-relative evolution of all ideas, each proportionate to the other. A theology which is not current [i.e. which does not continually change] will be a false theology." [2]

And in the pages preceding and following [i.e. the above quote], the author demonstrates that the theology of St. Thomas [Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., (b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D., in Fossa Nuova, Italy), Doctor of the Church], in several of its most important sections, is not current. For example, St. Thomas' idea of sanctifying grace was as a form (a basic principle of Supernatural operations which the Infused Virtues and the Seven Gifts have as their principle). "The ideas employed by St. Thomas are simply Aristotelian notions applied to theology." [3]

And further: "By renouncing the Aristotelian system, modern thought abandoned the ideas, design and dialectical opposites which only made sense as functions of that system." [4]

Thus Modern Thought abandons the notion of form.

How then can the reader evade the conclusion, namely that, since it is no longer current, the theology of St. Thomas is a false theology?

But then why have the Popes so often instructed us to follow the doctrine of St. Thomas? Why does the Church say in her Code of Canon Law, Canon 1366, n.2:

"The professors should by all means treat of the Rational Philosophy and Theology, and the training of the Students [especially Seminarians] in these subjects according to the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor [Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P.], and should hold these as "Sacred"? [5]

Further, how can "an unchanging truth" maintain itself if the two notions united by the verb "to be", are essentially variable or changeable?

An "unchangeable relationship" can only be conceived of as such if there is something unchangeable in the two terms that it unites. Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, it's like saying that the waves of the sea can be stapled together.

Of course, the two ideas that are united in an "unchangeable affirmation" are sometimes at first confused and then distinguished one from the other, such as the ideas of nature, of person, substance, accident, Transubstantiation, the Real Presence, sin, Original Sin, Grace, etc. But if these are not fundamentally unchangeable, how then will the affirmation which unites them by the verb "to be" be unchangeable?

How can one hold that the Real Presence of the Substance of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist requires Transubstantiation if the ideas are fundamentally variable? How can one assert that Original Sin occurred in us through a willed fault of the first man, if the notion of Original Sin is essentially unstable? How can one hold that the particular judgment after death is eternally irrevocable, if these ideas are said to change?

Finally, how can one maintain that all of these propositions are invariably true if the idea [concept] of Truth itself must change, and if one must substitute for the Traditional definition of Truth (the conformity of judgment to intuitive reality and to its immutable laws) what has been proposed in recent years by the "philosophy of action": the conformity of judgment to the exigencies of action, or to human life, which is always evolving?

[First Issue]

1. Do the Dogmatic Formulæ Themselves Retain Their Immutability?

Father Henri Boulliard [6] responds:

"The affirmation which is expressed in them remains."
But, he adds:
"Perhaps one might wonder if it is still possible to assert the contingency of the ideas implied in the conciliar definitions? Will it not compromise the irreformable character of these definitions? The Council of Trent (Session 6, Chapter 7, Canon 10) par excellence, in its teaching on justification, employs the idea of formal cause. Consequently, did it not enshrine this term and confer a definitive character upon the idea of grace as a form? Not at all. It was certainly not the intention of the Council to canonize an Aristotelian idea, nor even a theological idea conceived under the influence of Aristotle. It simply wished to affirm, against the Protestants, that justification is an interior renewal. Toward this end, it used some shared theological ideas of the times. But one can substitute others for these, without modifying the sense of its teaching." [7]
Undoubtedly, the Council did not canonize the Aristotelian idea of form with all of its relations to other ideas of the Aristotelian system. But it approved it as a stable human idea, in the sense that we speak of everything that formally constitutes a thing (in this case, justification). [8] In this sense, it speaks of sanctifying grace as distinct from actual grace, by saying that it is a supernatural gift, infused, which is inherent in the soul and by which man is formally saved. [9] If the Council defined faith, hope and charity as permanently infused virtues, their radical principle (habitual or sanctifying grace) must also be a permanently infused gift, and from that, distinct from actual grace or from a divine, transitory action.

But how can one maintain the sense of this teaching of the Council of Trent, namely that "sanctifying grace is the formal cause of salvation"? I do not say, if "one substitutes a verbal equivalent"; I say with Father Henri Boulliard "if one substitutes another idea".

If it is another idea, then it is no longer that of formal cause: Then it is also no longer true to say with the Council:

"Sanctifying grace is the formal cause of salvation."
It is necessary to be content to say that grace was defined at the time of the Council of Trent as the formal cause of salvation, but today it is necessary to define it otherwise, and that this passé definition is no longer current and thus is no longer true, because a doctrine which is no longer current, as was said, is a false doctrine. [10]

The answer will be:

For the idea of formal cause one can substitute another equivalent idea. Here one is satisfied by mere words (by insisting first on another and then on an equivalent), especially since it is not verbal equivalence, rather, it is another idea. What happens even to the idea of Truth? [11]
Thus the very serious question continues to resurface: Does the conciliar proposition hold as true: through conformity with the object outside the mind, and with its immutable laws, or rather through conformity with the requirements of human life which is always changing? [12]

One sees the danger of the new definition of truth, no longer the adequation of intellect and reality but the conformity of mind and life. [13] When Maurice Blondel in 1906 proposed this substitution, he did not foresee all of the consequences for the faith. Would he himself not be terrified, or at least very troubled? [14]

What "life" is meant in this definition of: "conformity of mind and life"? It means human life. And so then, how can one avoid the modernist definition: "Truth is no more immutable than man himself, inasmuch as it is evolved with him, in him and through him. [15] (Denz. 2058) One understands why Pius X said of the Modernists: "they pervert the eternal concept of Truth." [16] (Denz. 2080)

It is very dangerous to say: "Ideas change, the affirmation remains." If even the idea of truth is changing, the affirmations do not remain true in the same way, nor according to the same meaning. Then the meaning of the Council is no longer maintained, as one would have wished.

Unfortunately, the new definition of the truth has spread among those who forget what Pius X had said:

"We admonish professors to bear well in mind that they cannot set aside St. Thomas especially in metaphysical questions, without grave disadvantage." [17]

"A small error in principle, says Aquinas, is a great error in conclusion." (Encyclical "Pascendi")

Moreover, no new definition of truth is offered in the new definition of theology:
"Theology is no more than a spirituality or religious experience which found its intellectual expression."
And so follow assertions such as:
"If theology can help us to understand spirituality, spirituality will, in the best of cases, cause our theological categories to burst, and we shall be obliged to formulate different types of theology…For each great spirituality corresponded to a great theology."
Does this mean that two theologies can be true, even if their main theses are contradictory and opposite? The answer will be no if one keeps to the traditional definition of truth. The answer will be yes if one adopts the new definition of truth, conceived not in relation to being and to immutable laws, but relative to different religious experiences. These definitions seek only to reconcile us to modernism.

It should be remembered that on December 1, 1924, the Holy Office condemned 12 propositions taken from the philosophy of action, among which was number 5, or the new definition of Truth:

"Truth is not found in any particular act of the intellect wherein conformity with the object would be had, as the Scholastics say, but rather truth is always in a state of becoming, and consists in a progressive alignment of the understanding with life, indeed a certain perpetual process, by which the intellect strives to develop and explain that which experience presents or action requires: by which principle, moreover, as in all progression, nothing is ever determined or fixed." [18]
The last of these condemned propositions is:
"Even after Faith has been received, man ought not to rest in the dogmas of religion, and hold fast to them fixedly and immovably, but always solicitous to remain moving ahead toward a deeper truth and even evolving into new notions, and even correcting that which he believes." [19]
Many, who did not heed these warnings, have now reverted to these errors.

But then, how can it be held that sanctifying grace is essentially supernatural grace, free, not at all due to human nature nor to angelic nature?

By light of Revelation, St. Thomas clearly articulated this principle; the faculties, the "habits" and their acts are specified by their formal object; or the formal object of human intelligence and even that of angelic intelligence, are immensely inferior to the proper object of divine intelligence. [20]

But if one puts aside all metaphysics, in order to be satisfied with historical study and psychological introspection, the text of St. Thomas becomes unintelligible. From this point of view, what will be maintained by traditional doctrine regarding distinction not being contingent upon, but necessitated by virtue of the order of grace and of nature?

On this subject, there is the recent book of Father Henri de Lubac, Surnaturel (Etudes historiques) ["The Supernatural" in "Historical Studies"], [21] on the probable impeccability of the angels in the natural order, in which he writes: "Nothing is said by St. Thomas regarding the distinction which would be forged later by a number of Thomistic theologians between 'God author of the natural order' and 'God author of the supernatural order' … as if natural beatitude … in the case of the angels would have had to result from an infallible activity, non-sinning." [22]

On the contrary, St. Thomas often distinguishes the ultimate supernatural end of the ultimate natural end, [23] and regarding the devil, he says, [24] "The sin of the devil was not in anything which pertains to the natural order, but according to something supernatural." [25]

Thus one would become completely disinterested in the pronuntiata maiora (major pronouncements) of the philosophical doctrine of St. Thomas, that is in the 24 Thomist theses approved in 1916 by the Sacred Congregation of Studies.

Moreover, Father Gaston Fessard, S.J. in Les Etudes ["Studies"], November 1945, [26 ] speaks of the "welcome drowsiness which protects canonized Thomism, but also, as Péguy has said, 'buried it' whereas the school of thought dedicated to the contrary is full of life."

In the same review in April 1946, it was said that neo-Thomism and the decisions of the Biblical Commission are "a guardrail but not an answer." And it was proposed that Thomism be replaced, as if Leo XIII in the Encyclical Æterni Patris, would have been fooled, as if Pius X, in reviving this same recommendation, had taken a false route?

And on what path did those who were inspired by this new theology end up? Where but on the road of skepticism, fantasy and heresy?

His Holiness, Pius XII, recently said in a published Discourse in L'Osservatore Romano, Dec. 19, 1946:

"There is a good deal of talk (but without the necessary clarity of concept), about a 'new theology', which must be in constant transformation, following the example of all other things in the world, which are in a constant state of flux and movement, without ever reaching their term. If we were to accept such an opinion, what would become of the unchangeable dogmas of the Catholic Faith; and what would become of the unity and stability of that Faith?" [27]

[Second Issue]

2. Application of New Principles to the Doctrines of Original Sin and the Eucharist

Some will no doubt say that we exaggerate, but even a small error regarding first ideas and first principles has incalculable consequences which are not foreseen by those who have likewise been fooled. The consequences of the new views, some of which we have already reviewed, have gone well beyond the forecasts of the authors we have cited. It is not difficult to see these consequences in certain typewritten papers, which have been sent (some since 1934) to clergy, seminaries, and Catholic intellectuals; one finds in them the most singular assertions and negations on original sin and the Real Presence.

At times, in these same circulated papers, before such novelties are proposed, the reader is conditioned by being told: This will appear crazy at first, however, if you look at it closely, it is not illogical. And many end up believing it. Those with superficial intelligence will adopt it, and the dictum, "A doctrine which is not current, is no longer true" will be out walking. Some are tempted to conclude:

"It seems that the doctrine of the eternal pains of hell is no longer current, and so it is no longer true."

It is said in the Gospel that one day charity will be frozen in many hearts and they will be seduced by error.

It is a strict obligation of conscience for Traditional Theologians to respond. Otherwise, they gravely neglect their duty, and they will be made to account for this before God.

[Second Issue - Note 1]

In the files copied and distributed in France in recent years (at least since 1934, some of which this writer has), the most fantastic and false doctrines regarding original sin are taught.

In these same files, the act of Christian Faith is not defined as a supernatural and infallible belief according to revealed truths on account of the authority of God Who reveals them [28], but as a belief of the spirit in relation to a general outlook on the universe. This perspective reflects what is possible and most probable but not demonstrable. The Faith becomes an ensemble of probable opinions. From this point of view, Adam appears to be not an individual man from whom the human species is descended, but who is, instead, a collective.

Thus, from that point of view, it becomes impossible to hold to the revealed doctrine of original sin as explicated by Saint Paul, Rom. 5:18:

"Therefore as by the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life." [29]

All of the Fathers of the Church, who were authorized interpreters of Scripture in its constant sacred teaching, have always meant that Adam was an individual man as after Christ, and not a collective. [30]

But what is now proposed to us is a probability with a contrary meaning to that of the teaching of the Councils of Orange and Trent, Denz. 175, 789, 791, 793. [31]

Further, from this new point of view, the Incarnation of the Word would be merely a moment in universal evolution.

The hypothesis of the material evolution of the world is extended into the spiritual order. The supernatural world is in evolution toward the full coming of Christ.

Sin, in so far as it affects the soul, is something spiritual and thus intemporal. Thus it is of little importance for God that it took place at the beginning of the history of humanity or during the course of history.

The desire then is to change not only the expository mode of theology, but even the nature of theology, as well as that of dogma. No longer considered is the point of view of the faith infused by divine Revelation, and interpreted by the Church in its Councils. It is no longer a question of the Councils, but the replacement of them with a biological point of view torturously conceived by dim artificial light only to arrive at the most fantastic points of view that recall those of Hegelian evolutionism, which allows Christian dogmas to be retained in name only.

This then is the way of the rationalists, the school most desired by the enemies of the faith, which reduces all to mere and changeable opinion so that there is no value retained in them. What remains of the word of God given to the world for the salvation of souls?

In the articles titled, "How I believe" one reads, [32]

"If we wish, we other Christians, to conserve to Christ the qualities which are the basis of His power and our adoration, we can do nothing better or even nothing more than accept completely the most modern ideas of Evolution. Under pressure, the union of Science and philosophy occurs, and the World more and more imposes itself on our experience and our thought as a system linked by activities gradually lifting us toward liberty of conscience. The only satisfying interpretation of this process is that of regarding it as irreversible and convergent. Thus before we arrived, there was a universal cosmic Center, where all leads, where All is felt, or all merge into each other. Ah, it is the physical pole of the universal. Evolution is necessary to locate and recognize the plenitude of Christ … By discovering the apex of the world, evolution renders Christ, and all that He gave in service of making sense of the world, possible, and also makes evolution possible.

"I am perfectly aware of the staggering proportions of this idea … but, by imagining a parallel wonder, I can do nothing else but note, in terms of physical reality, the juridical expressions in the Church's deposit its Faith … I have unhesitatingly come to the realization that I can only go in that direction which seems able to let me progress, and consequently, to save my Faith.

"In the first place, Catholicism deceived me with its narrow definitions of the World, and by its failure to understand the role of Matter. Now, I recognize that by means of the Incarnation of God, it was revealed to me that I am only able to be saved by uniting myself to the universe. And my most profound 'pantheistic' hopes are guided, reassured and fulfilled by this same thrust (into the universe). The World around me, becomes divine ...

"A general convergence of religions toward a Christ-universal, who, fundamentally, fulfills everyone: this appears to me to be the only conversion possible to the World, and the only form imaginable for the Religion of the future." [33]

Thus the material world would have evolved toward spirit, and the world of the spirit would evolve naturally, that is to say toward the supernatural order and toward the fullness of Christ. Thus, the Incarnation of the World, the mystical body, the universal Christ would be moments of Evolution, and based on this view of a constant progress from the beginning, it would seem that there was not a fall at the beginning of the history of humanity, but a constant progress of good which triumphs over evil according to the same laws of evolution. Original sin in us would be the result of man's faults, which had exercised a deadly influence on humanity.

See then what remains of the Christian dogmas in this theory which distances itself from our Credo in proportion to its approach to "Hegelian evolutionism".

In the above cited work, the writer said: "I have taken the only road that seems possible to me for making progress and consequently, for saving my Faith." This therefore means that the Faith itself only saves if it progresses, and it changes so much that one can no longer recognize the Faith of the Apostles, nor that of the Fathers of the Councils. It is a way of applying the principle of the new theology:

"A doctrine which is no longer current, is no longer true"
and for some, it suffices that it is no longer current in certain quarters. From this emerges that the truth is always in fieri, never immutable. The Faith is the conformity to judgment, not with being and its necessary laws, but with life, which is constantly and forever evolving.

Here exactly is where the propositions condemned by the Holy Office, December 1, 1924, lead, and which we have quoted above [34]:

"No abstract proposition can have in itself immutable truth. Even after Faith has been received, man ought not to rest in the dogmas of religion, and hold fast to them fixedly and immovably, but always solicitous to remain moving ahead toward a deeper truth and even evolving into new notions, and even correcting that which he believes." [35]

[Second Issue - Note 2]

We have another example of the same deviation in the typewritten papers on the Real Presence, which have been circulating for some months among the clergy. These say that, formerly, the real problem with the Real Presence was not well posed: "The response to all of the difficulties that were posed was: Christ is present after the manner of a substance … This explication did not touch upon the real problem. We add that in its deceptive clarity, it suppressed the religious mystery. Strictly speaking, there is no longer a mystery there, there is nothing more than a marvel."

Thus it is St. Thomas who did not know how to pose the problem of the Real Presence and his solution: the presence of the Body of Christ by mode of substance [36] would be illusory; its clarity is a deceptive clarity.

We are warned that the new explication being proposed "evidently implies that the method of reflection substitutes the Cartesian and Spinozan for the scholastic method".

A bit further on, concerning transubstantiation, one reads: "This word is not without inconvenience, like that of original sin. It responds to the manner in which the Scholastics conceived of and defined this transformation and their definition is inadmissible."

Here the writer distances himself not only from St. Thomas, but from the Council of Trent [37], because it [the Council of Trent] defined transubstantiation as true by faith, and even said: "a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation." [38] Today these new theologians say:

"Not only is this word inconvenient, … it corresponds to an inadmissible concept and definition."

"In the Scholastic perspective, in which the reality of the thing is 'the substance', the thing may not really change, only if the substance changes … by the transubstantiation. According to the current view, where, by virtue of the offering which was made according to a rite determined by Christ, the bread and the wine became the efficacious symbol of the sacrifice of Christ, and consequently of the spiritual presence, and their religious being was changed, not only their substance". [39]

And also: "This is what we can designate by transubstantiation."

But it is clear that it is no longer the transubstantiation defined by the Council of Trent, "that singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine only remaining". [40]

It is evident that the sense of the Council is not maintained by the introduction of these new notions. The bread and the wine have become only "the efficacious symbols of the spiritual presence of Christ."

This brings us uniquely close to the modernist position which does not affirm the Real Presence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, but which only says from a religious and practical point of view: Comport yourself toward the Eucharist the same way you behave with regard to the humanity of Christ.

In these same circulated papers quite the same is done to the mystery of the Incarnation: "Although Christ is truly God, one cannot say that, because of Him, God was present in the land of Judea … God was no more present in Palestine than anywhere else. The efficacious sign of this divine presence was manifested in Palestine in the First Century of our epoch, and this is all that one can say." [41]

Finally the same writer adds:

"The problem of the causality of the sacraments is a false problem, born of a false method for posing the question."

[Second Issue - Note 3]

We do not think that the writers whom we have discussed abandoned the doctrine of St. Thomas. Rather, they never adhered to it, nor ever understood it very well. This is saddening and disquieting.

Wouldn't it be that only skeptics can be formed through this type of teaching, since nothing certain is proposed in place of St. Thomas? Moreover, they pretend to submit to the directions of the Church, but what is the substance of this submission?

A professor of theology wrote to me:

"In effect, the very notion of the truth has been put into debate, and without fully realizing it, thus revisiting modernism in thought as in action. The writings that you have spoken to me about are much read in France. It is true that they exercise a huge influence on the average type of soul. They have little effect on serious people. It is necessary to write for those who have the sincere desire to be enlightened."

Surely, the Church not only recognized the authority of St. Thomas in the domain of theology, but, by extension, also in philosophy. Contrary to their assertions, the Encyclical, Æterni patris of Leo XIII speaks above all of the philosophy of St. Thomas. Likewise, the 24 Thomistic theses proposed in 1916 by the Sacred Congregation of Studies are of a philosophical order, and if these pronunciata maiora of St. Thomas are not certified, then how can his theology have value, since they are constantly reiterated in the philosophy? Finally, we have already cited Pius X, who wrote:

"We admonish professors to bear well in mind that they cannot set aside St. Thomas especially in metaphysical questions, without grave disadvantage." [17]

"A small error in principle, says Aquinas, is a great error in conclusion." (Encyclical "Pascendi")

From whence do these trends come? A good analyst wrote to me:

"We are harvesting the fruits of the unguarded attendance of university courses. Those who have attempted to attend the classes of the masters of modernist thought in order to convert them have allowed themselves to be converted by them. Little by little, they come to accept their ideas, their methods, their disdain of scholasticism, their historicism, their idealism and all of their errors. If this is the result for those already formed, it is surely perilous for the others."

Conclusion: Whither the New Theology?

It revisits Modernism. Because it accepted the proposition which was intrinsic to Modernism: that of substituting, as if it were illusory, the Traditional definition of Truth: æquatio rei et intellectus (the adequation of intellect and reality), for the subjective definition: adequatio realis mentis et vitæ (the adequation of intellect and life). That was more explicitly stated in the already cited proposition, which emerged from the "Philosophy of Action", and was condemned by the Holy Office, December 1, 1924: "Truth is not found in any particular act of the intellect wherein conformity with the object would be had, as the Scholastics say, but rather truth is always in a state of becoming, and consists in a progressive alignment of the understanding with life, indeed a certain perpetual process, by which the intellect strives to develop and explain that which experience presents or action requires: by which principle, moreover, as in all progression, nothing is ever determined or fixed." [18] (v. Monitore ecclesiastico, 1925, t. I, p. 194.)

The Truth is no longer "the conformity of judgment to intuitive reality and its immutable laws", but "the conformity of judgment to the exigencies of action, and of human life which continues to evolve". The Philosophy of Being or Ontology is substituted by the Philosophy of Action which defines Truth as "no longer a function of being but of action".

Thus is Modernism reprised: "Truth is no more immutable than man himself, inasmuch as it is evolved with him, in him and through him. [42] As well, Pius X said of the Modernists, "they pervert the eternal concept of Truth."

This is what our mentor, Father M.B. Schwalm previewed in his articles in "Revue thomiste", (1896 through 1898) [43] on the Philosophy of Action, on the Moral Dogmatism of Father Labertbonnière, on the crisis of Contemporary Apologetics, on the Illusions of Idealism, and on the dangers that all of these posed to the Faith.

But while many thought that Father Schwalm had exaggerated, little by little they conceded the right to cite the new definition of Truth, and they more or less ceased defending the Traditional definition of Truth, as well as the conformity of judgment to intuitive being and the immutable laws of non-contradiction, of causality, etc. For them, the Truth is no longer "that which is", but "that which is becoming and is constantly and always changing".

Thus to cease to defend the Traditional definition of Truth by permitting it to be illusory, it is then necessary to substitute the vitalist and evolutionary. This then leads to Complete Relativism and is a very serious error.

Moreover, this leads to saying what the enemies of the Church wish to lead us to say. When one reads their recent works, one sees that they are completely content and that they themselves propose interpretations of our dogmas, whether it be regarding Original Sin, cosmic evil, the Incarnation, Redemption, the Eucharist, the final universal reintegration, the cosmic Christ, the convergence of all religions toward a universal cosmic center. [44]

One understands why the Holy Father [Pius XII] in his recent Speech published in the September 19, 1946, issue of L'Osservatore Romano, said, when speaking of the "new theology": "If we were to accept such an opinion, what would become of the unchangeable dogmas of the Catholic Faith; and what would become of the unity and stability of that Faith?"

Further, since [Divine] Providence only permits evil for a good reason, and since we see all about us an excellent reaction against the errors we have emphasized herein, we can then hope that these deviations shall be the occasion of a true doctrinal renewal, achieved through a profound study of the works of St. Thomas, whose value is more and more apparent when compared to today's intellectual disarray. [45]

End Notes for "Where is the New Theology Leading Us?"

1. 1944, p. 219

2. Emphasis added.

3. ibid, p. 213 ff.

4. p. 224.

5. "Philosophiæ rationalis ac theologiæ studia et alumnorumin his disciplinis institutionem professores omnino pertractent ad Angelici Doctoris rationem, doctrinam, et principia, eaque sancte teneant." Code of Canon Law, Canon 1366, n.2.

[The following is from:   Rev. P. Chas. Augustine, O.S.B., D.D., "A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law", Volume VI, Administrative Law (Canons 1154-1551), B. Herder Book Company, 1921, Imprimatur, Sti. Ludovici, die 22. Nov. 1920, Joannes J. Glennon, Archiepiseopus Sti. Ludovici, pp. 401-402):

Qualification of Seminary Professors
Canon 1366

I. Ad magisterii munus in disciplinis philosophicis, theologicis et iuridicis, ii, ceteris paribus, iudicio Episcopi et deputatorum Seminarii, præferantur, qui laurea doctorali potiti sint in Universitate studiorum vel Facultate a Sancta Sede recognitis, aut, si agatur de religiosis, qui simile testimonium a suis Superioribus maioribus habeant.

2. Philosophiæ rationalis ac theologiæ studia et alumnorum in his disciplinis institutionem professores omnino pertractent ad Angelici Doctoris rationem, doctrinam et principia, eaque sancte teneant.

3. Curandum ut saltern sacræ Scripturæ, theologiæ dogmaticæ, theologiæ moralis, et historiæ ecclesiasticæ, totidem habeantur distinct! magistri.

1. For the teaching of philosophy, theology, and canon law, other qualifications being equal, those should be preferred who have obtained the doctor's degree from a university or faculty recognized by the Holy See. The decision lies with the bishop and the seminary board. The phrase "ceteris paribus" is easily understood in the light of can. 1360, § I, which demands not only learning, but also virtue and prudence, as necessary qualities of a professor. Teachers taken from the rank of religious should have testimonials from their superiors testifying to their doctor's degree or recognized capacity and scholarship.

2. Mental philosophy and theology must be taught according to the method, teaching, and principles of the Angelic Doctor [Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P.], to which the professors should religiously adhere.

The method here understood is the scholastic form in which the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas and, in fact, all the great Summæ of the thirteenth century are composed.

The term "doctrina" in this connection is not so easily defined, but, taken as a whole, no doubt means the teaching of St. Thomas, more especially his metaphysics, though not each and every sentence laid down in his works need be accepted.

The principles of the Angelic Doctor [Saint Thomas Aquinas] are the rules or theses around which his system clusters, and upon which it more or less hinges, especially in metaphysics.

It was but natural that the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas should be prescribed as the text-book for theological seminaries. This does not mean that no other systematic text-book may be used for recitation purposes, but only that the Summa must be used and explained for the scholastic part, i.e., in the treatment of purely speculative questions.

Of modern erudition there is but little in the Summa, and yet dogmatic theology now-a-days must be treated with the aid of history and Holy Writ.

That it will not be easy for a Scotist or a Molinist to feel at home in the Thomistic system goes without saying; but no other system is condemned by the preference given to St. Thomas.

3. Care should be taken that at least Holy Scripture, dogmatic theology, moral theology, and Church history be taught by different professors.

Conclusion of the citation.]

6. op. cit, p. 221

7. ibidem.

8. I have explained this more fully in "Le Sens commun, la philosophie de l'etre et les formules dogmatiques" ["Common Sense: The philosophy of being and dogmatic formulæ"] 4th Edition, 1936, p. 362ff.

9. Cf. Denzinger, "Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum", # 799, 821.

10. Further, it is defined that the Infused Virtues (above all the [three] Theological Virtues), which derive from Habitual Grace, are qualities, permanent principles of Supernatural and meritorious Supernatural operations; it is thus necessary that Habitual Grace or Sanctifying Grace (by which we are in a State of Grace), from which these Virtues proceed, as from their source, are themselves a permanently infused quality and not at all a motion like Actual Grace.

Thus it is much before St. Thomas that Faith, Hope and Charity were conceived as Infused Virtues. What could be clearer? Why revert to Thomas' era under the pretext of preempting these questions, and of putting into doubt the most certain and fundamental Truths? To do so is an indication of the intellectual disarray of our times.

11. Mr. Maurice Blondel wrote in "Les Annals de Philosophie chrétienne" ["The Annals of Christian Philosophy"], June 15, 1906, p. 235: "For the abstract and chimerical 'adæquatio vei et intellectus' one substitutes methodical research, 'l'adæquatio realis mentis et vitæ'."

It is not without great responsibility that one calls "chimerical" [i.e. false] the Traditional definition of the Truth defined for centuries in the Church, and that one speaks of it by substituting another, in every area that comprises the Theological Faith.

Have the further works of Blondel corrected this deviation? We are unable to ascertain this.

He also says in "L'Ètre et les ètres", 1935, p. 415:

"Any intellectual evidence, even that of absolute principles themselves, and that have an ontological value, impose on us a constrained form of certainty."
In order to admit to the ontological value of these principles, one must have a free choice, and that by means of this choice, their ontological value is thus only probable. But it is necessary to admit according to the necessity of action "secundum conformitatem mentis et vitæ".

It can not be otherwise if one substitutes the Philosophy of Action for the Philosophy of Being or Ontology. Thus Truth was defined not as "a function of being", but [as "a function] of action".

Everything was changed. An error regarding the first idea of Truth gives rise to an error regarding all the rest. See also in "La Pensée" of Blondel (1934) V.I, p. 39, 130-136, 347, 355; and V. II. P. 65 ff., 90, 96-196.

12. "Per conformitatem cum ente extramentali et legibus eius immutabilibus, an per conformitatem cum exigentiis vitæ humanæ quæ semper evolvitur?"

13. "No longer 'adæquatio rei et intellectus', but 'conformitas mentis et vitæ'"

14. Another theologian, whom we shall cite further on, asks us to say that at the time of the Council of Trent that Transubstantiation was conceived as the changing, the conversion of the substance of the bread into that of the Body of Christ, but that today it has come to be thought of as the transubstantiation, without this changing of substance, meaning that the substance of the bread, which remains, becomes the efficacious sign of the Body of Christ. And that this pretends to conserve the sense of the Council!

15.  "Veritas non est immutabilis plusquam ipse homo, quippe quæ cum ipso, in ipso et per ipsum evolvitur". (Denz. 2058)  [Father Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger [b. at Liège, Belgium on Sunday, October 10, 1819 A.D. - d. at Würzburg, Bavaria, Germany on Tuesday, June 19, 1883 A.D.], Enchiridion "Symbolorum et Definitionum", # 2058.]

16. "Æternam veritatis notionem pervertunt." (Denzinger, "Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum", # 2080).

17. "Magistros autem monemus, ut rite hoc teneant Aquinatem vel parum deserere, præsertim in re metaphysica, non sine magno detrimento esse. Parvus error in principio, sic verbis ipsius Aquinatis licet uti, est magnus in fine." (Encyclical "Pascendi")

18. "Conformitas cum obiecto, ut aiunt scholastici, sed veritas est semper in fieri, consistitque in adæquatione progressiva intellectus et vitæ, scil. in motu quodam perpetuo, quo intellectus evolvere et explicare nititur id quod parit experientia vel exigit actio: ea tamen lege ut in toto progressu nihil unquam ratum fixumque habeatur."

The last of these condemned propositions is:

"Etiam post fidem conceptam, homo non debet quiescere in dogmatibus religionis, eisque fixe et immobiliter adhærere, sed semper anxius manere progrediendi ad ulteriorem veritatem, nempe evolvendo in novus sensus, immo et corrigendo id quod credit."
19. These condemned propositions are found in "Monitore ecclesiastico", 1925, p. 194; in "Documentation catholique", 1925, V. I. p. 771 ff., and in "Prælectiones Theologiæ naturalis" by Father Descoqs, 1932, VI, p. 150, V. II, p. 287ff.

20. The Deity or the intimate life of God, cf. 1a , q. 12, a.4.  [Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., (b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D., in Fossa Nuova, Italy), Doctor of the Church,"Summa Theologica", Part I, Question 12, Article 4, Whether any created intellect by its natural powers can see the Divine essence?]

21. 1946, p. 254.

22. Ibid, p. 275.

23. Cf. 1st, q. 23, a. 1:

"Finis ad quemres creatæ ordinatur a Deo est duplex. Unus, qui excedit proportionem naturæ creatæ et facultatem, et hic finis est vita æterna, quæ in divina visione consistit: quæ est supra naturm cuiuslibet creaturæ, ut supra habitum est 1st, q. 12, a. 4. Alius autem finis est naturæ creatæ proportionatus, quem scil. res creata potest attingere sec. Virtutem suæ naturæ."   ["I answer that..... The end towards which created things are directed by God is twofold; one which exceeds all proportion and faculty of created nature; and this end is life eternal, that consists in seeing God which is above the nature of every creature, as shown above (Q[12], A[4]). The other end, however, is proportionate to created nature, to which end created being can attain according to the power of its nature" (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P.,"Summa Theologica", Part I, Question 23, Article 1, Conclusion).]
Item Ist. Iind, q. 62, a. 1:
"Est autem duplex hominis beatitudo, sive felicitas, ut supra dictum est, q. 3. A. 2 ad 4; 1. 5, a.5. Una quidem proportionata humanæ naturæ, ad quam scil. homo prevenire potest per principia suæ naturæ. Alia autem est beatitudo, naturam hominis excedens."     ["Now man's happiness is twofold, as was also stated above (Question 3, Article 2, Reply to Objection 4 and Question 5, Article 5). One is proportionate to human nature, a happiness, to wit, which man can obtain by means of his natural principles. The other is a happiness surpassing man's nature..." (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P.,"Summa Theologica", Part I-II, Question 62, Article 1, Conclusion).]
Item de Veritate, q. 14, a. 2 : "Est autem duplex hominis boum ultimum. Quorum unum est proportionatum naturæ … hæc est felicitas de qua philosophi locuti sunt … Aliud est bonum naturæ humanæ proportionem excedens."

If one no longer admits to the classical distinction between the Order of Nature and that of Grace [i.e. the Order of Grace], one will say that Grace is the normal and obligatory achievement of nature, and the concession of such a favor does not remain less, one says, "free", like creation and all that follows it, because creation is no longer necessary. To which Father Descoqs, S.J. in his little book, "Autour de la crise du Transformism" ["On the crisis of Transformism"], 2nd Edition, 1944, p. 84, very legitimately responds:

"This explication seems to us in distinct opposition to the most explicit Catholic teachings. It also contains an evidently erroneous conception of Grace. Creation is never a 'Grace' in the Theological sense of the word, 'Grace' only being able to be found in relation to nature. In such a perspective, the Supernatural order disappears."
24. De malo, 1.16, a.3.  [Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P.,"Summa Theologica", Part I, Question 16, Article 3, Whether an angel can be the subject of penance?]

25. "Peccatum diaboli non fuit in aliquo quod pertinet ad ordinem naturalem, sed secundum aliquid supernaturale." Item 1a, 1.63, a. I. ad 3.   "The sin of the devil was not in anything which pertains to the natural order, but according to something supernatural."

26. p. 269-270

27. "Plura dicta sunt, at non satis explorata ratione 'de nova theologia' quæ cum universis semper volventibus rebus, una volvatur, semper itura, numquam perventura. Si talis opinio amplectenda esse videatur, quid fiet de numquam immutandis catholicis dogmatibus, quid de fidei unitate et stabilitate?"

28. Propter auctoritatem Dei revelantis.

29. "Sicut per nsius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem, sic et per unius iustitiam in omnes homines in justificationem vitæ. Sicutenim per inoboedientiam unius peccatores constituti sunt multi, ita per unius oboeditionem iusti constituentur multi." Romans 5:18.

30. Cf. "L'Épitre aux Romains" ["The Epistle to the Romans"], by Father M. J. Lagrange O.P. 3rd Edition, Commentary on chapter V.

31. The difficulties for the positivistic sciences and for prehistory were exposed in the article "Polygenism du Dict, de théol. Cath." The authors of this article, A. and J. Bouyssonie clearly distinguished, in section 2536, the purview of philosophy as being:

"Where the naturalist, inasmuch as he is one, is incompetent."

It would have been well if, in that same article, the question had been treated from three points of view: the positive sciences, philosophy and theology, particularly in relation to dogma and original sin.

According to several theologians, the hypothesis that before Adam there were men on earth who were of the human race, is not contrary to the faith. But according to Scripture, the human species which is dispersed over the entire earth, derives from Adam, Genesis 3:5-20; Wisdom 10.1; Romans 5:12, 18-19; Acts of the Apostles 17:26.

Also regarding the philosophical point of view, a free intervention of God in creating the human Soul was necessary, and even for preparing the body to receive it. The engendering of an inferior nature cannot however produce this superior state of his species; more comes out of less, contrary to the principle of causality.

Finally, as in the quoted article, column 2535:

"According to the mutationists (of today), a unique seed gave rise to the new species. The species was begun by an exceptional (superior) individual."

32. p. 15.

33. Emphasis added. The same kind of nearly fantastic ideas are found in an article by Father Teilhard de Chardin, "Life and Planets," published in les Études, May 1946, especially pp. 158-160 and 168.

See also "Cahiers du Monde nouveau" ["New World Notebooks"], August 1946, also by Father de Chardin, "Un grand Evènement qui se dessine: le Planetisation humaine." ["A great event is being planned: Human Planetization"]

[N.B.: Teilhard de Chardin could possibly be interpreted as meaning a number of things. For example: "space travel", or possibly human "consciousness ascending" in accordance with his theory of man evolving towards, and ultimately evolving into, "pure mind" or the "noosphere", a.k.a. the black hole of nothingness.]
I have also recently quoted a work by the same author, taken from "Études", 1921, V. II, p. 543, where he spoke of "The impossibility determining our absolute beginning in the order of phenomenon."

To which, Messrs. Sale and Lafont legitimately responded in "L'Évolution regressive" ["Regressive Evolution"], p. 47: "Isn't creation an absolute beginning?"

The Faith tells us that God daily creates the Souls of babies, and that in the beginning He created the Spiritual Soul of the first man. For Him the miracle is an absolute beginning which is not at all repugnant to reason.

Cf: On this point, P. Descoqs, S.I., "Autour de la crise du transformisme" ["On the crisis of transformation."], 2nd Edition, 1944, p. 85.

Finally, as Father Descoqs remarked [Ibid, p. 2 and 7], the theologians should not be speaking so much about evolutionism and transformism, since the best minds such as P. Lemolue, Professor at the Museum writes:

"Evolution is a kind of dogma which these priests do not believe, but that they hold for their people. Thus it is necessary to have the courage to say so, so that the men of the next generation will conduct their research by other methods." Cf. Conclusion of V. 5 of "L'Encyclopédia française" (1937).

Dr. H. Rouvière, professor in the Department of Medicine of Paris, member of the Academy of Medicine, also writes in "Anatomie philosophique", "La finalité dans l'Évolution ["Philosophical anatomies [or forms]": "Finality in Evolution"], p. 37:

"The doctrine of transformism collapses upon itself … The majority of biologists have distanced themselves from it because the defenders of transformism have never produced the least proof to support their theory and everything known about evolution contradicts their contentions."

34. "Nulla propositio abstracta potest haberi ut immutabiliter vera." "Etiam post fidem conceptam, homo non debet quiescere in dogmatibus religionis, eisque fixe et immobiliter adhærere, sed semper anxius manere progrediendi ad ulteriorem veritatem, nempe evolvendo in novos sensus, immo et corrigendo id quod credit." Cf: "Monitore Ecclesiastico", 1925, p. 194.

35. Cf: "Monitore ecclesiastico", 1925, p. 194.

36. Præsentia corporis Christi per modum substantiæ

37. Session 13, Chapter 4, Canon 2 (Denzinger, "Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum", # 877, 884).

38. "Quam quidem conversionem catolica Eclesia aptissime transsubstantiationem appelat."

39. In the same article we read:

"In the Scholastics' perspective, the idea of thing-sign was lost. In an Augustinian universe, where a material thing is not only itself, but rather a sign of Spiritual realities, one can say that a thing, being through the will of God the sign of another thing, which it was by nature, [that thing] might become itself other without changing appearance."
In the Scholastic perspective, the idea of thing-sign is not lost at all. Saint Thomas says, 1st, q. 1, a. 10:
"Auctor S. Scripturæ est Deus, in cuius potestate est, ut non solum voces ad significandum accommodet (quod etiam homo facere potest) sed etiam res ipsas."   ["I answer that, The author of Holy Writ is God, in whose power it is to signify His meaning, not by words only (as man also can do), but also by things themselves" (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 1, Article 10, Conclusion.]
Thus Isaac, who prepared to be sacrificed, is the figure of Christ, and the manna is the figure of the Eucharist.

St. Thomas notes this when speaking of this Sacrament. But, by the Eucharistic Consecration, the bread does not only become the sign of the Body of Christ, and the wine the sign of His Blood, as the Sacramentaries of the Protestants are thought to be (Cf. D.T.C. art. Sacramentaire), but as it was formally defined at the Council of Trent:

"The substance of bread is changed into that of the Body of Christ which was rendered present 'per modum substantiæ' under the species of bread."

And this is not only germane to the theologians of the era of the Council regarding the Consecration, it is also the Immutable Truth defined by the Church.

40. "Conversio totius substantiæ panis in Corpus et totius substantiæ vini in Sanguinem, manentibus duntaxat speciebus panis et vini." (Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, # 884.)

41. St. Thomas clearly distinguished the three presences of God:

First, the general presence of God in all the creatures which He brought into existence (1st. q. 8, a. 1).  [Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P.,"Summa Theologica", Part I, Question 8, Article 1, Whether God is in all things?]

Second, the special presence of God in the Just by Grace.

He [God] is in them as in a temple, acknowledged by a recognizable quasi-experienced object., q. 43, a. 3.  [Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 43, Article 3, Whether the invisible mission of the Divine Person is only according to the Gift of Sanctifying Grace?]

Third, the presence of the Word in the humanity of Jesus through the Hypostatic Union.

Thus it is certain that after the Incarnation, God was more present on the earth in Judea than elsewhere. But when one thinks that St. Thomas has not even known how to pose these problems, then one goes off into all types of flights of fancy, and returns to Modernism with the off-handedness that can be read on every one of these pages.

42. "Veritas non est immutabilis plusquam ipse homo, quippe quæ cum ipso, in ipso et per ipsum evolvitur". (Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, # 2058)

43. 1896, p. 36, section 413; 1897, p. 62, 239, 627; 1898, p. 578

44. Authors such as Téder and Papus, in their explication of Martinist Doctrine, teach a mystical pantheism and a neo-gnosticism by which everything comes out of God by "emanation" (there is then a fall, a cosmic evil, a "sui generis" - Original Sin), and all aspire to be re-integrated into the divinity, and all shall arrive there.

This is in many recent occultists' works on the modern Christ, and fulness in terms of astral light, ideas not at all those of the Church and which are blasphemous inversions because they are always the pantheistic negation of the true Supernatural, and often even the negation of the distinction of moral good and of moral evil, in order to allow only that which is a useful or desired good, including cosmic or physical evil, which with the reintegration of all, without exception, will disappear.

45. Certainly we admit that the true mystical experience, which proceeds in the Just from the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, above all, the Gift of Wisdom, confirms the Faith, because it demonstrates to us that the revealed mysteries correspond to our most profound hopes, and arouses the highest of those hopes. We recognize that there is a Truth of Life, a Conformity of the Spirit, with the life of the man of good will, and a peace which is the Sign of Truth. But this mystical experience supposes the Infused Faith, and the Act of Faith itself supposes Faith in the revealed mysteries.

Likewise, as the Vatican Council [i.e. the Twentieth Œcumenical Council, Vatican Council I - [Wednesday, December 8, 1869 A.D. - Monday, July 18, 1870 A.D.] expresses it, we are able to have, by the natural light of reason, the certainty that God exists as the author of nature. Solely because of this [fact], it is necessary that the principles of these proofs, in particular that of causality, are true "per conformitatem ad ens extramentale", and that they are demonstrable through sufficiently objectively proofs (subject a priori to the free choice of men of good will), and not only through a sufficiently subjective proof, as that of the Kantian one of the existence of God.

Finally the practical truth of prudence (per conformitatem ad intentionem rectam) supposes that our intention is truly strictly fixed on the ultimate end of man, and the judgment of the end of men must be true "secundum mentis conformitatem ad realitatem extramentalem". Cf. I-II. Q. 19, a. 3, ad 2.

["The Philosopher speaks here of the practical intellect, in so far as it counsels and reasons about the means: for in this respect it is perfected by prudence. Now in regard to the means, the rectitude of the reason depends on its conformity with the desire of a due end: nevertheless the very desire of the due end presupposes on the part of reason a right apprehension of the end" (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Summa Theologica, Part I-II, Question 19, Article 3, Reply to Objection 2).]

Appendix 1
Synod Vatican 2 was Hi-Jacked by
Neo-Modernist NEW Theology Theologians

A virtual handful of the apostles, and/or their disciples, of Nouvelle Théologie - the NEW Theology - a.k.a. neo-Modernism, greatly influenced the documents and other teachings of Synod Vatican 2 [Thursday, October 11, 1962 - Wednesday, December 8, 1965].

This was verified by Bishop Aloysius Wycislo, where he wrote in part:

"Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis had . . . a devastating effect on the work of a number of pre-conciliar theologians.... theologians and biblical scholars, who had been under a cloud for years, surfaced as periti  [theological experts who advised the Bishops] at Vatican II."  (Bishop Aloysius Wycislo [b. at Chicago, Illinois in 1908 - d. in 2005], Vatican Two Revisited; Reflections by One who was there, paperback edition published by Alba House on October, 1987; emphasis added.)
Most Roman Catholics are not aware of the fact that it was Pope 2nd John 23rd,  Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli [b. at Sotto il Monte, Bergamo, Kingdom of Italy on Friday, November 25, 1881;   Pope:  Tuesday, October 28, 1958 - d. at the Apostolic Palace, Vatican City, on Monday, June 3, 1963],  who had personally appointed a number of these Neo-Modernist NEW Theology Theologians as periti - experts - despite the fact that the actual rules of Synod Vatican 2 forbade every theologian, who had ever been under suspicion of Heresy, from being admitted to the Synod as a peritus, a theological expert whose function was to advised the Bishops attending Synod Vatican 2.

Wycislo specifically mentions that Hans Kung, Karl Rahner, John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar, Edward Schillebeeckx, and Henri De Lubac as theologians who had been under suspicion and who were yet admitted as periti to Synod Vatican 2 - obviously with the blessings of Pope 2nd John 23rd!

Appendix 2
Only Eight of the NEW Theology Theologians

Four NEW Theology Theologians - Top Row, Left to Right

1.  Mr. Ernest Renan.  2.  Father Alfred Loisy.  3.  Mr. Maurice Blondel  4.  Father Pierre Teilhard DeChardin

Four NEW Theology Theologians - Bottom Row, Left to Right

5.  Father Marie-Dominique Chenu, O.P.  6.  Father Karl Rahner.  7.  Cardinal Yves Marie Joseph Congar, O.P.  8.  Cardinal Jean-Guenolé-Marie Daniélou

Appendix 3
A Brief List of a Few of the Neo-Modernist NEW Theology Theologians

1) Mr. Ernest Renan
2) Father Alfred Firmin Loisy
3) Father George Tyrrell, a.k.a. George Tyrell, S.J.
4) Mr. Maurice Blondel
5) Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J.
6) 2nd Pope John 23rd, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli
7) Father Marie-Dominique Chenu, O.P.
8) Cardinal Henri-Marie De Lubac, S.J.
9) Pope Paul 6, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini
10) Mr. Jean Mouroux
11) Mr. Jean Guitton
12) Father Karl Rahner, S.J.
13) Cardinal Yves Marie Joseph Congar, O.P.
14) Father John Courtney Murray, S.J.
15) Cardinal Jean-Guenolé-Marie Daniélou
16) Cardinal-Elect, Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, S.J.
17) Mr. Louis Bouyer, Ex-Protestant French Lutheran Minister
18) Father Edward Cornelis Florentius Alfonsus Schillebeeckx, O.P.
19) Pope JP-2, a.k.a. John-Paul 2, Karol Józef Wyotya, a.k.a. Karol Józef Wojtyla
20) Pope Benedict 16, Joseph Alois Ratzinger
21) Bishop Peter Henrici, S.J.
22) Father Hans Küng

Appendix 4
Classical Trademarks of Some Modernist Heretics
and Sundry Purveyors of "Nouvelle Théologie"
"The NEW Theology" a.k.a. "Neo-Modernism"

1. Some Modernist Heretics and Disciples of Nouvelle Théologie - "the NEW Theology" - a.k.a. "Neo-Modernism", quote texts from the Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., including his Summa Theologica and then attempt to "spin" these texts in order to make these text mean either something different, or even the exact opposite, of what the texts actually say. This process of "spinning" the texts also tends to confuse some opponents.

2. Some Modernist Heretics and Disciples of Nouvelle Théologie - "the NEW Theology" - a.k.a. "Neo-Modernism", habitually meet well-argued criticisms from their opponents with a mere categorical general denial.

3. Some Modernist Heretics and Disciples of Nouvelle Théologie - "the NEW Theology" - a.k.a. "Neo-Modernism", really believe their own errors.

4. Some Modernist Heretics and Disciples of Nouvelle Théologie - "the NEW Theology" - a.k.a. "Neo-Modernism", regularly claim that what they write and what they say is merely misunderstood.

5. Some Modernist Heretics and Disciples of Nouvelle Théologie - "the NEW Theology" - a.k.a. "Neo-Modernism", try to cover up their heresies with equivocal words or terms which could be interpreted in more than one way. Pope Paul 6 was an expert at doing this.

6. Some Modernist Heretics and Disciples of Nouvelle Théologie - "the NEW Theology" - a.k.a. "Neo-Modernism", routinely try to "explain" how their rational is really orthodox. This explains why, in the case of some very deceptive Modernist Heretics, disputes arise at to exactly what the said Modernist Heretics actually said, even after the death of the said Modernist Heretics.

7. Some Modernist Heretics and Disciples of Nouvelle Théologie - "the NEW Theology" - a.k.a. "Neo-Modernism", try to cover themselves with the "cloak" of Catholicity by pretending that their works simply "explain" and/or "interpret" various teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in what they classify as modern terminology.

8. Some Modernist Heretics and Disciples of Nouvelle Théologie - "the NEW Theology" - a.k.a. "Neo-Modernism", using a variety of fallacies, attempt to try to escape ecclesiastical censures by using these (i.e. the said fallacies) and other deceptive practices.

9. Some Modernist Heretics and Disciples of Nouvelle Théologie - "the NEW Theology" - a.k.a. "Neo-Modernism", highly skilled in the art of dialectics, seek out opponents who are unlearned on those subjects with which the Modernist Heretic claims to have "thoroughly" researched and studied in an attempt to either discredit such opponents, especially in public, or to try to "convert" such opponents to accept their various heresies of Modernism, thereby taking advantage of the ignorance of such opponents who, armed with only the best of intentions, whether through ignorance and/or pride, make a futile attempt to defend the Truth.

10. Some Modernist Heretics and Disciples of Nouvelle Théologie - "the NEW Theology" - a.k.a. "Neo-Modernism", while trying to hide their True identity as Some Modernist Heretics and Disciples of Nouvelle Théologie - "the NEW Theology" - a.k.a. "Neo-Modernism", attempt to subtly insinuate their heretical propaganda into what they put on the internet, especially in what are called "blogs" - which are too frequently, although there are a few exceptions, cesspools of both ignorance and of learned ignorance, and which, to some observers, have become virtual internet "weeds", multiplying exponentially, and thereby de facto choking the Truth in an internet "war" whereby the Truths of the Catholic Deposit of Faith have become the targets to attack.

This is done in part by trying to overwhelm the immutable and unchangeable Truths of the Deposit of the Catholic Faith by trying to outnumber those relatively few websites which are devoted to the actual immutable and unchangeable Truths of the Deposit of the Catholic Faith. As a result, search engines will, more and more frequently, direct searchers to those websites operated by some Modernist Heretics and Disciples of Nouvelle Théologie - "the NEW Theology" - a.k.a. "Neo-Modernism".

Observers are sad and very concerned that the heresies of "the NEW Theology" theologians now appear to be proliferating on an unknown number of so-called "Catholic" web sites which have, perhaps with the best of intentions of their Lay webmasters, replicated such heretical theological data without a clue as to its real meaning so that, by sheer force of numbers - quantity - search engines now provide more and more links to these kinds of very questionable "Catholic" websites which deliberately use Traditional Catholic-sounding names.

Appendix 5

Encyclical of Pope Pius XII
Eugenio Pacelli
[Thursday, March 2, 1939 - Thursday, October 9, 1958]

On Human Origin

Concerning Some False Opinions
Threatening to Undermine
The Foundations of Catholic Doctrine

Wednesday, April 12, 1950

To Our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops and other local Ordinaries Enjoying Peace and Communion with the Holy See.

Venerable Brethren, Greetings and Apostolic Benediction

Disagreement and error among men on moral and religious matters have always been a cause of profound sorrow to all good men, but above all to the true and loyal sons of the Church, especially today, when we see the principles of Christian culture being attacked on all sides.

2. It is not surprising that such discord and error should always have existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely speaking, human reason by its own natural force and light can arrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by His providence watches over and governs the world, and also the natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts, still there are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful.

3. It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present condition of the human race, may be known by all men readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error.  [1]

4. Furthermore the human intelligence sometimes experiences difficulties in forming a judgment about the credibility of the Catholic faith, notwithstanding the many wonderful external signs God has given, which are sufficient to prove with certitude by the natural light of reason alone the divine origin of the Christian religion. For man can, whether from prejudice or passion or bad faith, refuse and resist not only the evidence of the external proofs that are available, but also the impulses of actual grace.

5. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribed to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

6. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

7. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.

8. In all this confusion of opinion it is consolation to Us to see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly they accept the word of God, so much the more do they diminish the value of human reason, and the more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.

9. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.

10. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.

11. Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an "eirenism" according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.

12. Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent "eirenism" seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.

13. These new opinions, whether they originate from a reprehensible desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not always advanced in the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same terms, nor always with unanimous agreement of their authors. Theories that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions and distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed by others more audacious, causing scandal to many, especially among the young clergy and to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves more openly in their writings intended for private circulation and in conferences and lectures. Moreover, these opinions are disseminated not only among members of the clergy and in seminaries and religious institutions, but also among the laity, and especially among those who are engaged in teaching youth.

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

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

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

17. Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.

18. Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," [2] is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.

19. Although these things seem well said, still they are not free from error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; [3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

21. It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition. [4] Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so many rich treasures of truth, that they can really never be exhausted. Hence it is that theology through the study of its sacred sources remains ever fresh; on the other hand, speculation which neglects a deeper search into the deposit of faith, proves sterile, as we know from experience. But for this reason even positive theology cannot be on a par with merely historical science. For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: "in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church."

22. To return, however, to the new opinions mentioned above, a number of things are proposed or suggested by some even against the divine authorship of Sacred Scripture. For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.

23. Further, according to their fictitious opinions, the literal sense of Holy Scripture and its explanation, carefully worked out under the Church's vigilance by so many great exegetes, should yield now to a new exegesis, which they are pleased to call symbolic or spiritual. By means of this new exegesis the Old Testament, which today in the Church is a sealed book, would finally be thrown open to all the faithful. By this method, they say, all difficulties vanish, difficulties which hinder only those who adhere to the literal meaning of the Scriptures.

24. Everyone sees how foreign all this is to the principles and norms of interpretation rightly fixed by our predecessors of happy memory, Leo XIII in his Encyclical "Providentissimus", and Benedict XV in the Encyclical "Spiritus Paraclitus," as also by Ourselves in the Encyclical "Divino Affflante Spiritu."

25. It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowedge of the free actions of men -- all this in contradiction to the decrees of the Vatican Council  [5]

26. Some also question whether angels are personal beings, and whether matter and spirit differ essentially. Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision. Nor is this all. Disregarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very concept of original sin, along with the concept of sin in general as an offense against God, as well as the idea of satisfaction performed for us by Christ. Some even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation, based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be so modified that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would be merely efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful members of His Mystical Body.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion takes these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faithful [11] Some however rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from preexisting and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. [12]

38. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies. [13] This Letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

39. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

40. Truly, we are aware that the majority of Catholic doctors, the fruit of whose studies is being gathered in universities, in seminaries and in the colleges of religious, are far removed from those errors which today, whether through a desire of novelty or through a certain immoderate zeal for the apostolate, are being spread either openly or covertly. But we know also that such new opinions can entice the incautious; and therefore we prefer to withstand the very beginnings rather than to administer the medicine after the disease has grown inveterate.

41. For this reason, after mature reflection and consideration before God, that We may not be wanting in Our sacred duty, We charge the Bishops and the Superiors General of Religious Orders, binding them most seriously in conscience, to take most diligent care that such opinions be not advanced in schools, in conferences or in writings of any kind, and that they be not taught in any manner whatsoever to the clergy or the faithful.

42. Let the teachers in ecclesiastical institutions be aware that they cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the office of teaching entrusted to them, unless in the instruction of their students they religiously accept and exactly observe the norms which We have ordained. That due reverence and submission which in their unceasing labor they must profess towards the Teaching Authority of the Church, let them instill also into the minds and hearts of their students.

43. Let them strive with every force and effort to further the progress of the sciences which they teach; but let them also be careful not to transgress the limits which We have established for the protection of the truth of Catholic faith and doctrine. With regard to new questions, which modern culture and progress have brought to the foreground, let them engage in most careful research, but with the necessary prudence and caution; finally, let them not think, indulging in a false "irenism," that the dissident and erring can happily be brought back to the bosom of the Church, if the whole truth found in the Church is not sincerely taught to all without corruption or diminution.

44. Relying on this hope, which will be increased by your pastoral care, as a pledge of celestial gifts and a sign of Our paternal benevolence, We impart with all Our heart to each and all of you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people the Apostolic Benediction.

45. Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, August 12, 1950, the twelfth year of Our Pontificate.


1. Conc. Varic. D.B., 1876, Cont. De Fide cath., cap. 2, De revelatione.

2. C.l.C., can. 1324; cfr. Conc. Vat., D.B., 1820, Cont. De Fide cath., cap. 4, De Fide et ratione, post canones.

3. Luke, X, 16.

4. Pius IX, Inter gravissimas, 28 oct., 1870, Acta, vol. 1, p. 260.

5. Cfr. Conc. Vat., Const. De Fide cath., cap. 1, De Deo rerum omnium creatore.

6. Cfr. Litt. Enc. Mystici Corporis Christi, A.A.S., vol. XXXV, p. 193 sq.

7. Cfr. Conc. Vat., D.B., 1796.

8. C.l.C. can. 1366, 2.

9. A.A.S., vol. XXXVIII, 1946, p. 387.

10. Cfr. S. Thom., Summa Theol., II-II, quæst. 1, art. 4 ad 3 et quæst. 45, art. 2, in c.

11. Cfr. Allocut Pont. to the members of the Academy of Science, November 30, 1941: A.A.S., Vol. XXXIII, p. 506.

12. Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19, Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.

13. January 16, 1948: A.A.S., vol. XL, pp. 45-48.

Appendix 6
Important Quotes

“[Saint Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the Traditions which you have been taught, whether by word [oral Tradition] or by Our letter [written Tradition - Scripture]’ [2 Thessalonians 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter [written Tradition - Scripture], but there is much also that was not written [oral Tradition]. Like that which was written [written Tradition - Scripture], the unwritten [oral Tradition] too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the Tradition [oral Tradition] of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a Tradition? Seek no further”  (Patriarch Saint John Chrysostom [b. Antioch, c. 347 A.D. - d. at Commana in Pontus on Friday, September 14, 407 A.D.], Patriarch of Constantinople [Thursday, February 26, 398 A.D. - Thursday, June 24, 404 A.D.], exiled from his See the 2nd time on Thursday, June 24, 404 A.D., Father and Doctor of the Catholic Church; Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

“These latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. Wherefore, We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most Sacred Duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our Office” (Roman Catholic Pope Saint Pius X, Giuseppe Sarto [Tuesday, August 4, 1903 - Thursday, August 20, 1914], Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, On the Doctrine of the Modernists, Sunday, September 8, 1907, ¶ 1; emphasis added.)

“Therefore, heresy is so-called from the Greek word meaning choice, by which each chooses according to his own will what he pleases to teach or believe.  But we are not permitted to believe whatever we choose, nor to choose whatever someone else has believed.  We have the Apostles of God as authorities, who did not themselves of their own will choose what they would believe, but faithfully transmitted to the nations the teaching received from Christ.  So, even if an Angel from Heaven should preach otherwise, he shall be called anathema”  (Saint Isidore of Seville [b. Cartagena, Spain 560 A.D. - d. Seville, Spain, 636 A.D.], Bishop of Seville, Doctor of the Catholic Church, Etymologies, 8, 3; emphasis added).

“And you shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

“Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the Truth?” (Galatians 4:16).

“For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the Truth, but will be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

“But though We, or an angel from Heaven, preach to you a Gospel besides that which We have preached to you; let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:8).

“Be not led away with various and strange doctrines.  Jesus Christ yesterday, and today, and the same forever” (Hebrews 13:8-9).

“With the Father of light there is no change nor shadow of alteration”  (James 1:17).

“God is Truth”.  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., [b. 1225 A.D. in Rocca Secca, Naples, Italy - d. Wednesday, March 7, 1274 A.D., in Fossa Nuova, Italy], Doctor of the Church, Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 16, Article 5; Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Question 93, Article 2, Reply to Objection 2. Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, Chapter 60.)

“Truth knows no distinction of persons.  Therefore, he who speaks the Truth is invincible, dispute with whom he may”  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Commentary on Job, Chapter 13, Lesson 2).

“If people are scandalized at the Truth, it is better to allow the birth of scandal, than to abandon the Truth” (Saint Gregory I, the Great, [Friday, September 3, 590 - Monday, March 12, 604], Homily on Ezechiel, 7; cited by Saint Thomas Aquinas, O.P., Summa Theologica, Part II-II, Question 43, Article 7).

“But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to teach or to deliver a different Creed... let them be anathema [i.e. automatically excommunicated]” (Fourth Œcumenical Council, the First Council of Chalcedon, Session 5, Sunday, October 22, 451 A.D.).

“We have only one doctrine; this is the faith of the Doctors of the Church; this is the Faith of the Holy Apostles; this is the Faith which has saved the world.” (Fourth Œcumenical Council, the First Council of Chalcedon [Sunday, October 8, 451 A.D. - Wednesday, November 1, 451 A.D.])

“If anyone rejects all ecclesiastical Tradition, either written or unwritten:  let him be anathema.” (Seventh Œcumenical Council, the Second Council of Nicæa [Thursday, September 24, 787 A.D. - Friday, October 23, 787 A.D.], Anathema 4).

The Blessing
V. Sit + Nomen Domini benedictum.
R. Ex hoc nunc, et usque in saeculum.
V. Adjutorium nostrum in
Nomine Domini.
R. Qui fecit cœlum et terram.
V. Benedicat vos, Omnipotens Deus:
V. Pa + ter, et Fi + lius, et Spiritus + Sanctus, descendat super vos, et maneat semper.
R. Amen.
V. Blessed + be the Name of the Lord.
R. Now and for ever more.x
V. Our help is in the Name of the Lord.
R. Who made Heaven and earth.
V. May Almighty God Bless thee:x
V. The Fa + ther, the + Son, and the Holy + Ghost, descend upon thee, and always remain with thee.
R. Amen.

Our Blessed Mother asks Catholics to
Pray her Traditional Rosary daily.
The Rosary will really make a
Powerful difference in Your Life!

The Memorare
Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help or sought thy intercession, was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my Mother. To thee do I come; before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me. Amen. 
Please click here to go to
The Sermons Homepage
Please click here to go to the
Editorial Contents Homepage.
Please click here to go to the
Contents Homepage.