WHAT IS MODERNISM? Fr Peter R Scott SSPX No. 130 Defende Nos September 2025

[Dawn Marie]

No. 130 Defende Nos September 2025

WHAT IS MODERNISM?

As traditional Catholics, we find it incomprehensible that we should be condemned for doing what Catholics have always done in the past. How could it be wrong to believe as Catholics have believed for 2,000 years, and to worship at Holy Mass as they have worshipped? How is it that eve[1]rybody does not understand this obvious point that what was true and right in the past must be so now also? The reason for this incomprehension lies in that we have not grasped the way of thinking of postconciliar Catholics, profoundly penetrated by modernism as it is. Unfortunately, modernism is a mystery for most traditional Catholics. We are scared to delve into the nature of this error for four reasons. Firstly, because we are told that it is an error that originates from philosophy, which most of us do not understand. Secondly, because the modernists do not make a clear and systematic exposé of their ideas but describe them in deliberately ambiguous and often contradictory ways, so that it becomes very difficult to have a clear idea of what they mean. Thirdly, because there are so many degrees of error that it is difficult to categorize a person as a modernist as such. Fourthly, on account of their cunning, “for they play the double part of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error” St. Pius X, Pascendi, §3). However, this being admitted, we can nevertheless describe in simple terms the characteristics by which a modernist can be identified. They are well described by St. Pius X in his encyclical on Modernism, Pascendi. Let us consider in lay terms their principal theories, and we will understand why they are so opposed to traditional Catholics.

1) The modernist has a split personality. He can accept “truths” as a believer, but not as theologian or philosopher and sees no contradiction in this. He can defend the Church as an apologist, but not as a reformer or critic. He considers himself a faithful Catholic, but yet as a scholar he re[1]fuses the doctrinal teachings of the Church. As a believer he accepts the inspiration of Sacred Scripture, but as a critic he has the right to tear it apart by textual criticism. The difficulty in discussing with him is that he will readily flip from one personality to another. At one moment he speaks as a believer and at the next moment as a rationalist

2) Although personally he believes in God, he maintains that he cannot know by reason if God really exists or not, nor does he see any contradic[1]tion in this. Objective truth is beyond the capacity of the human mind to know, which is why he considers that men have such different ideas. The truth is in my personal experience.

3) Yet although he does not pretend to prove the existence of God, he nevertheless believes in Him, for he considers religion as an interior sense of the divine. Religion takes its origin in our personal experience or need of the divine. It is this interior sense which he calls faith, and which in fact has nothing to do with a God outside of man. God is within our personal perceptions.

4) Revelation is consequently God manifesting Himself to this interior sense. It is man’s consciousness of God, and therefore it is different for every man. To this even the supreme Magisterium of the Church must submit. During the synod on synodality this consciousness was called the sense of the faith, as found in the minds of the faithful. Revelation is con[1]sequently subject to change and evolution, and cannot be said to have come to an end with the death of the last of the Apostles, St. John.

5) All religions, and in particular the Catholic religion, are mere develop[1]ments of this religious sense, and consequently there is no distinction between the natural and supernatural in religion. Hence all must enjoy equal authority and privileges, regardless of whether we perceive them to be true or false. This is the root of the teaching on Religious Liberty promoted by Vatican II (Dignitatis humanae).

6) Catholic doctrine or dogma does not come directly from revelation, but is the fruit of reflection and rethinking primitive formulas, so as to elaborate secondary formulas. Hence dogmas do not adequately express any real object, but are simply symbols that express the interior sense of faith. Catholic doctrines are then but images of the truth, which is contained in the infinite variety of personal experiences. Catholic doctrines are consequently secondary formulas “that must proceed under the guidance of the heart” (§13).

7) Dogma is consequently open to constant change and evolution. It must be living, that is constantly being readapted to the religious experience of the believer. Consequently, the modernist accuses the notion that there should be fixed dogmas as a clinging vainly to meaningless formulas. It is because dogmatic formulas are changeable that they are treated with little or no respect. What matters is the religious sense, by which they are adapted to the believer. This is St. Pius X’s comment on this error: “They have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion” (Ib.).

8) For the modernist the divine is truly real, but it exists only in the mind of the believer. The modernist refuses the unbelief of the rationalist, but locates the divine in the religious sense, or the intuition of the heart of the believer. It is this experience that makes the person a believer. This is the clear basis of the charismatic movement, which is entirely founded on the personal experi[1]ence of the spirit, and not upon the objective teachings of Catholic doctrine.

9) The immediate consequence of this is that every religion, even that of pa[1]ganism, must be held to be true. Experience can be found in any religion. Therefore they are all true. This is the foundation of the practice of Ecumen[1]ism, which renounces every effort to convert to the Catholic Faith, but con[1]siders that all religions are good. It is certainly true that the modernist will consider that the Catholic religion is better than the others, but only because it produces a more vivid and profound experience. Not all modernists will admit the conclusion that all religions are true, but by their practice of ecu[1]menism and by their refusal to bring people to the Catholic Faith, they show what they really believe.

10) Tradition is for the modernist not the handing down of a deposit of Faith, but the communication of an original experience. Its purpose is to awaken religious sense and religious experience, whether found in books or by oral transmission. Its purpose is consequently not to pass on a fixed teaching. This is precisely the accusation that Pope John Paul II directed against Archbishop Lefebvre, when in 1988 he accused him of having a fixed notion of Tradition, meaning that for him the content of which is handed down never changes. He accused Archbishop Lefebvre of failing to have a living, that is an evolving, notion, of Tradition, by refusing the experience, that is the revolution, of Vat[1]ican II. You can see that with such an opposition of principle, no discussion is possible.

11) St. Pius X points out that the modernist has no difficulty in saying contra[1]ry things at different times, and that he does so deliberately on account of his opinion on the separation of faith and science. Consequently, when speaking on scientific subjects, such as history, theology or Scripture he will say noth[1]ing of the divinity of Christ, nor of the Church Fathers or Councils, and even deny them, but when preaching or teaching catechism he will openly profess and quote them. Hence the difficulty in seizing what he really means and in refuting him. Thus the modernist refuses the historical fact of the institution of the seven sacraments by Christ, but accepts that they are manifestations of the life of Christ, lived by Christians, and that in this way their origin is di[1]vine and from Christ. Likewise he denies that the sacraments produce grace by and of themselves, and considers them as bare symbols. However, these symbols, he says, are efficacious by the impulse they give to the religious sense. Thus he denies their true efficacy, and substitutes a false subjective one that makes it appear that he still believes.

12) The modernist denies the foundation of the Church by Christ, but yet explains it in another way. It is the fruit of the need of the believer to communicate his faith, and of the group of believers to gather into a community, based on the first believer, who was, they say, Christ. Never mind that Christ, being God, never had Faith, but the beatific vision. The authority of the Church is consequently an emanation, flow[1]ing from the religious conscience of all the members, and must consequently be democratic. This is the origin of the collegiality of Vatican II, and the undermining of the Pope’s personal authority. The modernist church is consequently synodal and must come from the people. According to this theory there is no longer any need for the visible signs of belonging to the Church, such as baptism or profession of the Faith or assistance at Mass. All believers can belong. Hence the definition of the Church given in the very first paragraph of the Vatican II document on the Church (Lumen gentium): “The Church, in Christ, is in the na[1]ture of a sacrament - a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men”. Any and every believer can belong. This is the reason for the same document professing that the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church” (Ib. §8). It is no longer considered identical to it. Non-Catholics, accord[1]ing to the modernist theory of the Church can still be members of Christ’s Church. This is the direct negation of the Catholic doctrine: “Outside the Church no salva[1]tion”, which refers to the visible Catholic Church. Many consequences follow, most particular sacramental hospitality, Catholics receiving the sacraments from non[1]Catholic ministers and non-Catholics receiving them from Catholic ministers. How can you convince a modernist of this shocking sacrilege, for as long as he is imper[1]vious to an understanding of what the Church really is?

13) Separation of Church and State is the immediate consequence of the theory that religion is only in the inner sense of the divine. Consequently, there can never be any overlap with civic life, nor is the State to be concerned with laws of morality or any religion at all. This is the denial of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, taught so explicitly by Pope Pius XI in 1925 (Quas Primas) and denied by Vatican II. 14) With respect to the liturgy, the modernists maintain that, like everything else in the Church, it must evolve and change to adapt to the religious sense of the believ[1]er. St. Pius X describes it thus: “The chief stimulus of the evolution of worship con[1]sists in the need of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples” (§26). We call this today inculturation, and it is the main factor in the destruction of the sanctity of the Catholic Mass by the Novus Ordo. These few brief considerations give an insight into the way of thinking of modern Catholics, who mostly do not even realize that they are modernists. It can clearly be seen that the post-Conciliar Church has adopted the essential positions of the mod[1]ernists, which were explicitly condemned by St. Pius X. It is true that most modern Catholics do not bring these principles to all their logical conclusions, and that con[1]sequently we cannot say that they have lost the Faith. However, it cannot be denied that have embraced the principles of modernism.

Fr Peter R Scott