By: Magíster Yousef Altaji Narbón
“Well then:” –teaches the holy Pope of the 20th century, St. Pius X– “once natural theology has been repudiated and, consequently, all access to revelation has been closed by discarding the motives of credibility; moreover, once all external revelation has been completely abolished, it is clear that the desired explanation cannot be sought outside man, but must be found within man; but since religion is a form of life, the explanation must be found exclusively in the life of man himself. By this procedure the principle of religious immanence is established. Indeed, every vital phenomenon—and religion has already been said to be such—recognizes as its first stimulus a certain impulse or need, and as its first manifestation that movement of the heart which we call feeling. For this reason, since God is the object of religion, it follows from what has been said that faith, the principle and foundation of all religion, resides in an intimate feeling engendered by the need for the divine.”
What has the Roman Pontiff just told us in this passage from his famous encyclical in which he condemns the heresy of Modernism? In simple terms, the Pope sets forth a fundamental error that underpins modernist thought. He unveils the utterly mistaken logic of this heresy, which begins by shutting itself off and denying any kind of divine revelation or truths that come from outside the individual; once this is done, the only thing left is the content within man; following this logic, the naturally religious man will seek the origin and explanations of faith from within—that is, from his own judgment.
In short—and to make it perfectly clear—the modernist closes himself off to all external truth and reality because he believes that faith originates and finds its reason within his own being (this stems from the level of pride and liberalism inherent in this current). Consequently, religion is formed merely through his intimate feeling. This is what he calls vital immanence or religious immanence.
Since Modernism is the central evil of our times, its pillars—especially that of vital immanence—have now become the predetermined way of thinking, reasoning, and living the Catholic faith for the vast majority of the faithful. It has become the general rule, the default of the ordinary Catholic.
The application of this
Like a seed that grows, spreads its roots, and bears fruit, this mistaken way of conceiving the faith may have remained hidden during the years of St. Pius X’s pontificate, but shortly afterward, due to a lack of vigilance, it spread everywhere. Because of the pernicious nature of this pillar of Modernism—centering man as the source of revelation and of judgments about the faith—it managed to contaminate everyone in every sphere of the Church’s structure.
Immanentism creates in each person their own doctrine, dogma, morality, philosophy, and entire Creed of beliefs. When two people infected with this rational-philosophical mindset discuss matters, sooner or later they realize there are notable differences between what A believes and what B believes. This is not merely an abstract example between two individuals; it is visible and constitutes the reality at the parish level, at the higher levels of a diocese, and even among Episcopal Conferences.
Between one diocese and another, one can see a total disparity of criteria regarding what IS the Catholic faith. Some love it and others hate it, but the famous Malachi Martin, in several of his radio interviews (recorded between the early and late 1990s), dared to say what few or none would say. Martin coined an apt term to describe the situation under discussion: Parish-to-Parish theology, which summarizes how beliefs and doctrinal points vary from one parish to another. This is the giant, fat, pink elephant with the yellow trunk that few dare to point out, even though its existence annihilates countless faithful who are sold and imposed erroneous ideas about the truths handed down by Christ.
The magnitude of this blatant disparity is everywhere. The Dutch Catechism, published by the Episcopal Conference of the Netherlands in 1966, caused a scandal by shredding Catholic doctrine on countless topics and replacing it with modern adaptations. In 1968, the Canadian bishops met to draft what is known as the Winnipeg Declaration, which sought, through exceptions, fallacies, and mental acrobatics, to conveniently reject Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. It was shocking to see the declaration that departed from the perennial Magisterium of the Holy Church on the subject addressed by that encyclical. A final striking case demonstrating the complete rupture of an entire Episcopal Conference with the bimillennial Magisterium is recent. It is the communiqué of the Costa Rican bishops issued on July 19, 2019, in which they banned, without exception, the Traditional Latin Mass, following and being very obedient to Pope Francis’s motu proprio Traditionis Custodes. It is worth noting—and astonishing—to observe the time lapse between the publication of the motu proprio and the issuance of the communiqué: only three days. One might wonder whether they uncorked champagne to celebrate victory over the anachronistic rite of the Mass (as has been heard in other circles, referring to the Mass of Ages) and whether the motu proprio was manna from heaven to suppress all resistance to the light of the Council.
This aspect of the current crisis facing the Holy Church has been grimly enthroned and can be verified in two ways: the official catechetical material of the dioceses and the responses of different countries in the Synodal process. The first is easy to verify by acquiring a catechism approved by the diocese for official teaching in schools. Phrases such as: “Jesus is your friend… The Eucharist is a symbol… the Paschal Mystery… feeling God in your personal encounter with Him… the miracles Jesus performed must be understood in their context… the Christian religion is the fruit of a lived encounter of the Risen One with the disciples…” among countless other bitter contradictions with two thousand years of Church teaching. The second is confirmed by a basic reading of the summary of the supposed responses of each country to the Synodal surveys. Let us take a snapshot of some Latin American countries:
Colombia: “Promotion of methods to cultivate synodality… inclusive evangelization with and toward sexual, religious, and ethnic minorities and vulnerable persons… inculturation of the liturgy… care for the Common Home.”
Chile: “Care for the common home… a welcoming and inclusive Church, the marginalized and excluded: empathy with the world of suffering; as well as the Church and persons with different sexual orientations.”
Argentina: “The call to listen and learn to dialogue; the Church walking united; mission and dialogue with the world… demands to live within and outside the Church… protagonism of women in the Church… A fourth theme is that of celebrations: they are expected to be more festive, meaningful, and inculturated, recovering saints, devotions, symbols, and expressions from the different regions of our country.”
(Cf. Buena Voz Católica, “Results of the Synodal Listening in Latin America,” with sources for each result.)
Loss of universality:
This loss of universality in almost every sphere, environment, circle, and structure of the Church causes the eclipse of the first mark of the Catholic Church—and one might even say the most relevant—which is UNITY. How can there be ONE single Church if from place to place, parish to parish, diocese to diocese, different things are preached? It is simply a matter of visiting place A, learning what is preached there, then traveling to place B to discover the similar variation. The first site may be conservative while the second is plainly more liberal, or vice versa; it is almost impossible to predict what one will find next. Caution: there is a greater probability of guessing the outcome of a roll of the dice than of deducing the possible findings when visiting an unknown diocese.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, in his treatise Against Heresies, proclaims the following truth in his writings: “The Church, spread throughout the world to the ends of the earth, received from the Apostles and their disciples the faith…” and continues: “The Church received this preaching and this faith, and, spread throughout the whole earth, she carefully guards it as though she dwelt in a single household. She preserves the same faith, as though she had but one soul and one heart (Acts 4:32), and she preaches, teaches, and hands it on with one voice, as though she had but one mouth. Certainly, the languages are diverse according to the different regions, but the force of the Tradition is one and the same.” The teachings of the saint cited here are worthy of meditation. This is what the Catholic Church is about: unity in all aspects, but with singular importance the sound doctrine believed and professed by all members of the Mystical Body of Christ.
What a difference from the present! When universality in belief is lost, a void is created. What will fill this void? That task has already been accomplished long ago. The loss of doctrinal universality has been replaced by abuses such as blind obedience to the shifting winds of the Pope of the moment; the incessant false need to profess one’s own fierce bond with the diocesan prelate; constant participation in every kind of diocesan activity, among other fanciful requirements to mentally convince oneself that unity and universality exist.
Let us confront the teaching of St. John Chrysostom, which plainly demonstrates the discrepancy between what ought to be and the current scenario: “‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our letter.’ (2 Thess 2:15) From this it follows that they did not hand everything down by letter, but many things were also transmitted orally, and both are equally worthy of credence. Therefore, let us also consider the tradition of the Church worthy of credence. It is a tradition; do not seek beyond it. Here he shows that there were many who felt perplexed.” By the willful abandonment of the Deposit of Faith, faithfully transmitted to our times through Apostolic Tradition, we have arrived at this paradigm in which daily novelty is the rule of faith.
How to overcome this:
It is not difficult; it is simply a matter of study, effort, and dedication—everything a Catholic must do. We already have the material; we already have the means, which can be easily acquired. If we must guard the truth alone, then blessed be God. “Every Christian who wishes to unmask the intrigues of the heretics who spring up around us, avoid their snares, and remain whole and unharmed in an uncontaminated faith, must, with the help of God, equip his faith in two ways: first, with the authority of divine law, and second, with the tradition of the Catholic Church.” This is the key given by St. Vincent of Lérins. To cleanse oneself of the contaminating toxicity of the ideas, paradigm, and revolutionary spirit found everywhere, one must heed the holy author of the Commonitorium—from which the excerpt cited above is taken—, whose motivation for writing this brief treatise was to instruct the faithful in elementary notions for preserving the faith against any wind of doctrine, as expressed in Sacred Scripture. Paraphrasing Malachi Martin, who constantly gave his view on how to overcome the disparity of criteria and the loss of universality, it is through: incorrupt fidelity to the traditional Magisterium, total adherence to the sacraments in the traditional rite, and the daily recitation of the Holy Rosary. A reliable recipe for safeguarding the faith in difficult times.
Note: Articles published as Tribuna express the opinion of their authors and do not necessarily represent the editorial line of Infovaticana, which offers this space as a forum for reflection and dialogue.