A Primer on Modernism

From the teaching of Pope St. Pius X 

While preparing for an upcoming Catholic Study Group session on “The Great Heresies”, I noticed that the list of heresies to be covered did not include “Modernism.”  I then thought it best, primarily to cure my own ignorance, to come up with a primer on that heresy.

I first arrived at a list of primary magisterial sources with help from Magisterium.com.  I then interrogated those sources using Google’s NotebookLM, validated and edited the results and put the citations into proper MLA format.  The section entitled “Modernism in the Church Today” was researched and written in a traditional manner, i.e. without AI.  

While it is not exhaustive, I believe that this primer faithfully expresses the teaching of Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XI on the subject of Modernism.  

---

Modernism is a loose-knit but highly influential theological and philosophical movement within the Roman Catholic Church that first came to the fore in the late 19th and early 20th centuries but is still very much present in the Church today. Modernism attempts to reconcile the Catholic faith with modern science, philosophy, and historical criticism, but in a way in which the foundational doctrines of the Church are altered or contradicted.  It is an agnostic heresy with theological, philosophical, moral, legal and social manifestations and was definitively condemned by Pope Pius X in 1907.  He labeled it “the synthesis of all heresies” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis 39).  

Key Elements of Modernist Thought

In his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope Pius X systematically outlined the core doctrines of the Modernists, showing how their various theories formed a completely organized system of errors.  The key elements include:

1. Agnosticism and the Limits of Reason.  Adopting Kantian philosophy, the Modernist argues that human reason cannot transcend the visible, phenomenal world. Therefore, science and history must be strictly atheistic, and God cannot be the direct object of scientific or historical study (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 6). External proofs for religion, such as miracles or prophecies, are rejected  (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 29-30).

2. Vital Immanence (The Internal Origin of Religion).  Because God cannot be found externally, Modernists argue that religion originates entirely from within man. Religion is born from an internal, subconscious “need of the divine” that stirs the human heart. This internal sentiment or “intuition of the heart” is what the Modernist calls “faith” and “revelation” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 7). Consequently, because this religious sentiment is common to all humanity, Modernists conclude that all religions—including paganism—are fundamentally true expressions of this internal experience (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 14).

3. The Evolution and Symbolism of Dogma.  Modernists reject the orthodox view that dogmas are absolute, immutable truths revealed by God (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 13,28). Instead, they argue that dogmas are merely inadequate “symbols” and human formulas created by the intellect to express internal religious feelings (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 11, 12). Because human society, culture, and knowledge constantly change, these dogmatic formulas must continuously evolve. If a dogma ceases to be a “living” expression of the believer’s religious sentiment, it becomes obsolete and must be altered (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 13).

4. The Separation of History and Faith.  Applying their agnostic framework to scripture, Modernists create a sharp division between the “Christ of history” and the “Christ of faith” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 29,30,31). They argue that the historical Jesus was a mere man who possessed no divine attributes and performed no true miracles  (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 29,30). The “Christ of faith,” however, is a glorified, transfigured figure created over time by the religious sentiments and pious meditations of the early Christian community  (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 9, 31).

5. The Redefinition of Scripture and Sacraments
   1. The Bible: Modernists view the Sacred Scriptures not as a divine dictation free from error, but as an evolving collection of extraordinary human religious experiences  (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 22, 33). They argue the texts were heavily altered, expanded, and interpolated by later generations to fit the evolving needs of the Church  (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 33, 34).
   2. The Sacraments: For the Modernist, the Sacraments were not instituted by Christ. Rather, they evolved from a psychological need to give religion a physical, sensible manifestation and to help propagate the faith  (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 20, 21).

6. Democratic Church Authority.  Modernists teach that the Church and its authority are not divinely instituted from above, but emanate vitally from the “collective conscience” of the believers (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 23). Because authority originates from the people, Modernists demand that the Church’s government and teaching office adapt to modern democratic forms and submit to the spirit of the times (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 23, 25). Furthermore, they advocate for a strict separation of Church and State (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 24).

7. Social and Moral Modernism.  While the movement initially focused on theology and philosophy, Pope Pius XI later warned of “moral, legal, and social modernism.” (Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, sec. 61) This refers to the application of modernist evolution and subjectivism to social authority, the rights of property, the nature of the family, and the relationship between capital, labor, and the State, effectively ignoring the immutable moral laws established by God (Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, sec. 60).

Precursors and Roots of Modernism

The intellectual foundations of Modernism were built upon several post-Enlightenment philosophical and historical developments:

• Kantian Agnosticism: The philosophical root of Modernism traces back to Immanuel Kant, whom the sources identify as the “father” of this form of agnosticism. Kant argued that human reason is strictly confined to sensory phenomena and cannot attain certain, speculative knowledge of suprasensible realities like God. This provided Modernism with its epistemological skepticism, denying that God could be known through rational proofs or historical facts (Vermeersch).

• Positivism and Rationalism: As seen in Pope Pius IX’s 1864 Syllabus of Errors, the 19th century saw a rise in absolute rationalism and naturalism, which denied divine revelation, reduced prophecies and miracles to myths, and insisted that human reason was the sole arbiter of truth (Syllabus of Errors, sec. 5, 6 ,7).

• Liberal Protestantism: Modernist thinkers like Alfred Loisy were heavily engaged with the work of liberal Protestant scholars, particularly Adolf von Harnack. Harnack attempted to strip away the historical “husk” of Christian dogma to find a purely moral and internal “kernel” of Jesus’ teaching (“Alfred Firmin Loisy”). 

• The New Historical Criticism: Scholars like Ernest Renan and D.F. Strauss applied positivist, secular history to the Bible. Renan, a former Catholic seminarian, wrote a wildly popular Life of Jesus in 1863 that portrayed Christ purely as a historical and psychological phenomenon, denying His divinity and the reality of miracles (Resch). The historical-critical methods of scholars like Abbé Louis Duchesne also heavily influenced leading Modernists to question the historical reliability of the Scriptures (“Alfred Firmin Loisy”).

• Liberal Catholicism: The movement was also an offshoot of 19th-century liberal Catholicism, which introduced doctrinal subjectivism and the erroneous assumption that the supernatural dogmas of the Church needed to be “softened” or brought up to date to be palatable to modern society (“Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background of the Oath Against Modernism.”).

Sixty-five Condemned Modernist Propositions

Pope St. Pius X condemned 65 specific modernist propositions in the 1907 syllabus Lamentabili Sane.  These errors are:

1. The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament.
2. The Church’s interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes.
3. From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures passed against free and more scientific exegesis, one can conclude that the Faith the Church proposes contradicts history and that Catholic teaching cannot really be reconciled with the true origins of the Christian religion.
4. Even by dogmatic definitions the Church’s magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures.
5. Since the deposit of Faith contains only revealed truths, the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences.
6. The “Church learning” and the “Church teaching” collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it only remains for the “Church teaching” to sanction the opinions of the “Church learning”.
7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any internal assent from the faithful by which the judgments she issues are to be embraced.
8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations.
9. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures.
10. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this: The Israelite writers handed down religious doctrines under a peculiar aspect which was either little or not at all known to the Gentiles.
11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.
12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document.
13. The Evangelists themselves, as well as the Christians of the second and third generation, artificially arranged the evangelical parables. In such a way they explained the scanty fruit of the preaching of Christ among the Jews.
14. In many narrations the Evangelists recorded, not so much things that are true, as things which, even though false, they judged to be more profitable for their readers.
15. Until the time the canon was defined and constituted, the Gospels were increased by additions and corrections. Therefore there remained in them only a faint and uncertain trace of the doctrine of Christ.
16. The narrations of John are not properly history, but a mystical contemplation of the Gospel. The discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations, lacking historical truth concerning the mystery of salvation.
17. The fourth Gospel exaggerated miracles not only in order that the extraordinary might stand out but also in order that it might become more suitable for showing forth the work and glory of the Word Incarnate.
18. John claims for himself the quality of witness concerning Christ. In reality, however, he is only a distinguished witness of the Christian life, or of the life of Christ in the Church at the close of the first century.
19. Heterodox exegetes have expressed the true sense of the Scriptures more faithfully than Catholic exegetes.
20. Revelation could be nothing else than the consciousness man acquired of his revelation to God.
21. Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.
22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.
23. Opposition may, and actually does, exist between the facts narrated in Sacred Scripture and the Church’s dogmas which rest on them. Thus the critic may reject as false facts the Church holds as most certain.
24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves.
25. The assent of faith ultimately rests on a mass of probabilities.
26. The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing.
27. The divinity of Jesus Christ is not proved from the Gospels. It is a dogma which the Christian conscience has derived from the notion of the Messias.
28. While He was exercising His ministry, Jesus did not speak with the object of teaching He was the Messias, nor did His miracles tend to prove it.
29. It is permissible to grant that the Christ of history is far inferior to the Christ Who is the object of faith.
30. In all the evangelical texts the name “Son of God” is equivalent only to that of “Messias.” It does not in the least way signify that Christ is the true and natural Son of God.
31. The doctrine concerning Christ taught by Paul, John, and the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon is not that which Jesus taught but that which the Christian conscience conceived concerning Jesus.
32. It is impossible to reconcile the natural sense of the Gospel texts with the sense taught by our theologians concerning the conscience and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.
33. Everyone who is not led by preconceived opinions can readily see that either Jesus professed an error concerning the immediate Messianic coming or the greater part of His doctrine as contained in the Gospels is destitute of authenticity.
34. The critics can ascribe to Christ a knowledge without limits only on a hypothesis which cannot be historically conceived and which is repugnant to the moral sense. That hypothesis is that Christ as man possessed the knowledge of God and yet was unwilling to communicate the knowledge of a great many things to His disciples and posterity.
35. Christ did not always possess the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.
36. The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstrated nor demonstrable) which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other facts.
37. In the beginning, faith in the Resurrection of Christ was not so much in the fact itself of the Resurrection as in the immortal life of Christ with God.
38. The doctrine of the expiatory death of Christ is Pauline and not evangelical.
39. The opinions concerning the origin of the Sacraments which the Fathers of Trent held and which certainly influenced their dogmatic canons are very different from those which now rightly exist among historians who examine Christianity.
40. The Sacraments have their origin in the fact that the Apostles and their successors, swayed and moved by circumstances and events, interpreted some idea and intention of Christ.
41. The Sacraments are intended merely to recall to man’s mind the ever-beneficent presence of the Creator.
42. The Christian community imposed the necessity of Baptism, adopted it as a necessary rite, and added to it the obligation of the Christian profession.
43. The practice of administering Baptism to infants was a disciplinary evolution, which became one of the causes why the Sacrament was divided into two, namely, Baptism and Penance.
44. There is nothing to prove that the rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation was employed by the Apostles. The formal distinction of the two Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation does not pertain to the history of primitive Christianity.
45. Not everything which Paul narrates concerning the institution of the Eucharist (I Cor. 11:23-25) is to be taken historically.
46. In the primitive Church the concept of the Christian sinner reconciled by the authority of the Church did not exist. Only very slowly did the Church accustom herself to this concept. As a matter of fact, even after Penance was recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called a Sacrament since it would be held as a disgraceful Sacrament.
47. The words of the Lord, “Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” (John 20:22-23), in no way refer to the Sacrament of Penance, in spite of what it pleased the Fathers of Trent to say.
48. In his Epistle (Ch. 5:14-15) James did not intend to promulgate a Sacrament of Christ but only commend a pious custom. If in this custom he happens to distinguish a means of grace, it is not in that rigorous manner in which it was taken by the theologians who laid down the notion and number of the Sacraments.
49. When the Christian supper gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action those who customarily presided over the supper acquired the sacerdotal character.
50. The elders who fulfilled the office of watching over the gatherings of the faithful were instituted by the Apostles as priests or bishops to provide for the necessary ordering of the increasing communities and not properly for the perpetuation of the Apostolic mission and power.
51. It is impossible that Matrimony could have become a Sacrament of the new law until later in the Church since it was necessary that a full theological explication of the doctrine of grace and the Sacraments should first take place before Matrimony should be held as a Sacrament.
52. It was far from the mind of Christ to found a Church as a society which would continue on earth for a long course of centuries. On the contrary, in the mind of Christ the kingdom of heaven together with the end of the world was about to come immediately.
53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.
54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.
55. Simon Peter never even suspected that Christ entrusted the primacy in the Church to him.
56. The Roman Church became the head of all the churches, not through the ordinance of Divine Providence, but merely through political conditions.
57. The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences.
58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.
59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.
60. Christian Doctrine was originally Judaic. Through successive evolutions it became first Pauline, then Joannine, finally Hellenic and universal.
61. It may be said without paradox that there is no chapter of Scripture, from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalypse, which contains a doctrine absolutely identical with that which the Church teaches on the same matter. For the same reason, therefore, no chapter of Scripture has the same sense for the critic and the theologian.
62. The chief articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first ages as they have for the Christians of our time.
63. The Church shows that she is incapable of effectively maintaining evangelical ethics since she obstinately clings to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modern progress.
64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.
65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.

Pope Pius XI’s Teaching

Pope Pius XI expanded the Church’s critique of Modernism by explicitly condemning its manifestations in the moral, legal, and social spheres, rather than focusing solely on its theological and philosophical errors.  In his 1922 encyclical Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, he declared: “There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism.” (Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, sec. 61)

According to Pius XI, this social modernism was characterized by the following:

• Hypocrisy in Social Doctrine: It was found among clergy and laity who claimed to hold fast to Catholic teachings on issues like social authority, the right to own private property, the relationship between capital and labor, Church-State relations, and international relations, but whose actions contradicted these claims (Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, sec. 60).

• Disregard for Papal Authority: Social modernists spoke, wrote, and acted as if the solemn teachings and pronouncements of previous popes—specifically Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius X, and Pope Benedict XV—were obsolete or no longer possessed binding force (Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, sec. 60).

• A Contagious Influence: Pius XI warned that these false ideas and unhealthy sentiments were spreading like a “contagious disease” as an after-effect of the Great War (World War I), seducing even some of the best Catholics with a “false appearance of truth” (Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, sec. 59). He stressed the need to reawaken supernatural love and Christian discipline, particularly among youth and seminarians, to protect them from being “tossed to and fro” by these deceptive doctrines (Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, sec. 61, 62).

In later encyclicals, Pius XI continued to combat the ideological descendants of Modernism. In his 1932 encyclical Caritate Christi Compulsi, he denounced ideologies that waged an “atrocious war against all religion and against God Himself” (Caritate Christi Compulsi 4). He warned against the dangerous modern error of attempting to separate morality from religion, which he saw as an extension of the Modernist rejection of divine law (Caritate Christi Compulsi 24).

Modernism in the Church Today

Here are two examples of what I believe to be contemporary modernist errors.  The first is found in a certain scriptural commentary and the other is found in a document signed by the late Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahamad al-Tayyib.

Scriptural Commentary

In this example of a note on Matthew 16:21-23 found in “The Catholic Bible, Personal Study Edition” published the Oxford University Press in 1995, a scholar says that the three predictions of our Lord’s passion in the Gospel of Matthew don’t originate with our Lord Himself.  This would seem to be an example of errors 11 through 14  and 33 through 35 cataloged by St. Pope Pius X as listed above.

On the Plurality of Religions

My second and perhaps more disturbing example, can be found in the document “Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” signed by the late Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Ahamad al-Tayyib in Abu Dhabi in 2019.  

While much of the document’s contents regarding human fraternity are laudable, this sentence should stop us in our tracks:

“The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.”

While diversity in general might indeed be willed by God, saying that the diversity of religions is directly willed by God is a modernist error.  As St. Pope Pius X said, 

“Indeed Modernists do not deny but actually admit, some confusedly, others in the most open manner, that all religions are true.” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, sec. 14).

Works Cited

“Alfred Firmin Loisy (1857-1959).” Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology, edited by Wesley J. Wildman, https://people.bu.edu/wwildman/bce/loisy.htm. Accessed 25 Feb. 2024.

First Vatican Council. Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith (Dei Filius) and First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ (Pastor Aeternus). 1870. Papal Encyclicals Online, www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm.

Francis, Pope, and Ahmad Al-Tayyeb. Document on “Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.” The Holy See, 4 Feb. 2019, www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/travels/2019/outside/documents/papa-francesco_20190204_documento-fratellanza-umana.html.

Hiesberger, Jean Marie, editor. The Catholic Bible, Personal Study Edition. New York, Oxford University Press, 1995.

Holy Office. Lamentabili Sane. 3 July 1907. Papal Encyclicals Online, www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10lamen.htm.

Leo XIII. Providentissimus Deus. 18 Nov. 1893. The Holy See, www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus.html.

Loisy, Alfred (1857–1940) | Encyclopedia.com.  Smith, Colin. “Loisy, Alfred (1857–1940).” Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Encyclopedia.com, 3 Feb. 2026.

Pius IX. The Syllabus of Errors. 8 Dec. 1864. Papal Encyclicals Online, www.papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm.

Pius X. Pascendi Dominici Gregis. 8 Sept. 1907. The Holy See, www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html.

Pius X. Sacrorum Antistitum. 1 Sept. 1910. The Holy See, www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/la/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-x_motu-proprio_19100901_sacrorum-antistitum.html.

Pius XI. Caritate Christi Compulsi. 3 May 1932. The Holy See, www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_03051932_caritate-christi-compulsi.html.

Pius XI. Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio. 23 Dec. 1922. The Holy See, www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19221223_ubi-arcano-dei-consilio.html.

Resch, Richard J. “Renan, Ernest.” Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Lindsay Jones, 2nd ed., Gale, 2005. Encyclopedia.com, www.encyclopedia.com/people/history/historians-european-biographies/ernest-renan. Accessed 25 Feb. 2024.

“Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background of the Oath Against Modernism.” The American Ecclesiastical Review, The Catholic University of America Press, Oct. 1960, pp. 239-260. CatholicCulture.org, Trinity Communications.

Vermeersch, Arthur. “Modernism.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Robert Appleton Company, 1911. New Advent, https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm.