What would St. Vincent Lérins think about Francis using his words to promote Modernism? In this post, I hope to show you how Francis gets schooled by the saints, especially St. Vincent, when it comes to the Modernist heresy. Remember, this is not me, but the saints, schooling Francis.
Recently, in a conversation with several Jesuits in Portugal, Jorge Bergolgio (Francis) answered a question about certain criticisms lodged against Jesuits and Francis himself in the United States.
What must have seemed like a softball question for Francis, I would not put it past him to have that question planted, the opportunity to rip on the rigid traditionalists in the United States could not be ignored.
What struck me this time about Francis’ modernist answers was that almost every single one of his points had been previously rejected by a saint in the past—point for point. In the case of St. Vincent Lérins, Francis clearly twisted St. Vincent’s words to support his modernism, when the point of St. Vincent’s commentary was the opposite! It’s really a sick thing.
Using the words of the great saints themselves, I have reproduced the section of the conversation concerning the traditionalists in the United States and provided “responses” from the saints to some of the major points. I also provide links to the rebuttal documents so you can read them in their entirety for yourself.
Conversation with Jesuits
From the original article in BLACK, Responses in RED.
Pope Francis, I would like to ask you a question as a religious brother. I am Francisco. Last year I spent a sabbatical year in the United States. There was one thing that made a great impression on me there, and at times made me suffer. I saw many, even bishops, criticizing your leadership of the Church. And many even accuse the Jesuits, who are usually a kind of critical resource of the pope, of not being so now. They would even like the Jesuits to criticize you explicitly. Do you miss the criticism that the Jesuits used to make of the pope, the Magisterium, the Vatican?
[Begin Francis:]
You have seen that in the United States the situation is not easy: there is a very strong reactionary attitude. It is organized and shapes the way people belong, even emotionally. I would like to remind those people that indietrismo (being backward-looking) is useless and we need to understand that there is an appropriate evolution in the understanding of matters of faith and morals as long as we follow the three criteria that Vincent of Lérins already indicated in the fifth century: doctrine evolves ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate. In other words, doctrine also progresses, expands and consolidates with time and becomes firmer, but is always progressing. Change develops from the roots upward, growing in accord with these three criteria.
What St. Vincent actually said was:
“In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterated, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits (emphasis added).” St. Vincent Lerens, Commonitory, Chap. 23, para. 56.
Let us get to specifics. Today it is a sin to possess atomic bombs; the death penalty is a sin.
But St. Thomas Aquinas says:
“Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” Summa Theologica, II of II, Q. 64, Art. 2.
You cannot employ it, but it was not so before. [Here, Francis admits changing doctrine.] As for slavery, some pontiffs before me tolerated it, but things are different today.
Actually, to the contrary, Pope Pius X condemned slavery very specifically:
“..by the help of our Apostolic authority… condemn and declare guilty of grave crime whosoever, as he says, ‘shall dare or presume to reduce the said Indians to slavery, to sell them, to buy them, to exchange or give them, to separate them from their wives and children, to deprive them of goods and chattels, to transport or send them to other places, or in any way whatsoever to rob them of freedom and hold them in slavery; or to give counsel, help, favor, and work on any pretext of color to them that do these things, or to preach or teach that it is lawful, or to co-operate therewith in any way whatever.’ Lacrimabili Statu, 6 (St. Pius X, 1912).
So you change, you change, but with the criteria just mentioned.
Notice he keeps repeating “change” not “development.” Pope St. Pius X warns us about these Modernist heresies. He teaches us “change” is the goal of the Modernist heretic:
“Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and as clearly flows from their principles.” Pascendi Dominci Gregis, 13 (St. Pius X, 1907).
I like to use the “upward” image, that is, ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate. Always on this path, starting from the root with sap that flows up and up, and that is why change is necessary.
Pope St. Pius X also calls out and condemns this “root flowing up from the ground” metaphor in the following proposition using instead the term “latent germ”:
“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.” Syllabus of Pope St. Pius X Condemning the Errors of the Modernists.
Vincent of Lérins makes the comparison between human biological development and the transmission from one age to another of the depositum fidei, which grows and is consolidated with the passage of time.
St. Vincent literally used this analogy to prove the opposite of what Francis is contending. Yes, the human embryo grows into an adult, but St. Vincent says:
“Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.” St. Vincent Lerens, Commonitory, chap. 23, para. 55.
Here, our understanding of the human person changes with time, and our consciousness also deepens. The other sciences and their evolution also help the Church in this growth in understanding. The view of Church doctrine as monolithic is erroneous.
Here, Francis associates the development of our understanding of the human person and the consciousness with the “evolution” of Church doctrine. Pius X specifically condemned this:
“Hence, Venerable Brethren, springs that ridiculous proposition of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. Hence it is that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. Hence the law, according to which religious consciousness is given as the universal rule, to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and to which all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in its teaching capacity, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred liturgy or discipline.” Pascendi, 8.
With regard to the sciences, Pope Pius X condemned the following proposition:
“Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.” Syllabus of Pope St. Pius X Condemning the Errors of the Modernists, 64.
But some people opt out; they go backward; they are what I call “indietristi.” When you go backward, you form something closed, disconnected from the roots of the Church and you lose the sap of revelation. If you don’t change upward, you go backward, and then you take on criteria for change other than those our faith gives for growth and change. And the effects on morality are devastating. The problems that moralists have to examine today are very serious, and to deal with them they have to take the risk of making changes, but in the direction I was saying.
If Francis had made this statement before 1967, he would have violated the oath against Modernism all priests were required to uphold. It says in relevant part,
“Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.” The Oath Against Modernism (St. Pius X).
You have been to the United States and you say you have felt a climate of closure. Yes, this climate can be experienced in some situations. And there you can lose the true tradition and turn to ideologies for support. In other words, ideology replaces faith, membership of a sector of the Church replaces membership of the Church.
[End]
Conclusion
I hope you can see from the conversation above that Francis is attempting to do what all modernist heretics do—they redefine terms by either ignoring or abusing prior magisterial statements in order to justify “change” to the timeless teachings of the Church and even the dogmas of the faith.
In this case, the redefined term is “tradition” itself. Ignoring the obvious distinction between changing doctrine and faithfully developing doctrines without changing their essential meaning, which is exactly the point of St. Vincent’s commentary. The Modernist seeks to mislead, trick and ultimately destroy what it means to be Catholic.
In order to help explain this important distinction, which is really at the heart of the Modernist versus Traditionalist dispute in the Church today, I created a short video explaining the difference between “change” and “development” in Catholic Tradition.
Unless we know and understand their tactics and how what they are saying has been condemned as the heresy of Modernism—a heresy as grave and evil as any other heresy in the history of the Church—we will never be able to make clear and adequate rebuttals. I hope this little exercise helped.