sign in sign up
<<
Home , Papal infallibility, Papal primacy, Pope Leo IX, Pope Pius VII

Vatican II The 2nd Vat Council began on October 11, 1962 and ended on /1965. John XXIII made the announcement that there would be a council on January 25 1959. But of course it did not begin right after the announcement because time was needed for preparation, etc. Also, the Council was not in session for 3-4 straight years without any interruption. There were actually 4 sessions during the council (usually from Sept/Oct till Nov/Dec); and there were intersessions in between. 16 documents were produced as a result of the work of the council in those 3 years (1962-65). These documents have the greatest weight when it comes to the question of teaching authority in the .

DIFFERENT CHURCH DOCUMENTS: there are many types of Church documents. Below are just a few. 1. Vatican II documents: these documents have the greatest weight because they were approved and promulgated as by the , with all the votes/deliberation of the worldwide. 2. Code of Law (1983): The function of the Code was to apply conciliar teaching in terms of church laws. Certainly the Code must be read/interpreted in light of the Council, not vice-versa. 3. Catechism of the Church (CCC): Again, the Catechism must be read in light of the Council. The CCC began when Pope JP II formed a commission of bishops and cardinals in 1986 to compose a Catechism. Not all the bishops of the world were consulted; thus the CCC cannot override the Council. 4. Papal : these are letters from the Pope in his capacity as the of . They are authoritative, but by the fact that they come from one bishop (the pope), they are not as important as conciliar documents (which came from all the bishops, the pope being one of them). 5. Documents from the different congregations in Rome: Again, these must be read in light of the Council and cannot contradict the teaching of the Council. 6. Documents from Different Bishops’ Conferences: there are different national episcopal (bishops’) conferences. The documents resulting from each conference, of course, cannot contradict the conciliar teaching. Moreover, these documents only have weight in their own conference, and cannot impose their teaching authority on other conferences. For example, the documents from the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops are only binding on Catholics in the US: they are not necessarily binding on European/Asian Catholics.

As is evident, Vat II presents the highest teaching authority in the Church. Definitions of papal , when defined by the Pope in his capacity as Successor of Peter and Pastor of the Universal Church, also have the same teaching weight as the documents of the Council. However infallible definitions are proclaimed differently from conciliar documents; and up to this point in history, has been exercised only once—in 1950 when Pope Pius XII solemnly defined the Doctrine of the . Even then, he did not do so without first having consulted his bishops.

CONCEPTION OF HISTORY: The Judeo-Christian understanding of history is linear, rather than circular. History does not repeat itself. For Judaism as well as for , history began at a certain point. There is also a central point; and finally there is an end point. The beginning point for both religions is the creation story (Genesis). The central point for Judaism is the event of the Exodus (God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt and the giving of the Mosaic Law—the Law being the most important aspect of life for the Jews). The end point for the Jews is the coming of the long-awaited Messiah. For Christians the central point of human history is the event of the Incarnation—the life, death and resurrection of the Christ, Son of God. The Incarnation is the central aspect of the Christian . And the end point on the historical line for Christians is the Second Coming of Jesus Christ—also known as the eschatology in Christian . Since history is linear, everything that happened on the historical line has its “befores” and “afters.” Thus we cannot talk about the Vat II in and of itself. We also have to have a general picture of what took place before the Council, all the events leading to the Council, all the persons involved, etc. Below, I present a short list (by no means exhaustive) of the persons/things/events that we CANNOT not discuss when we want to speak about the Council: i. The 1st half of the 20th century: when there was an increasing need for the Church to dialogue with the modern world. The world had witnessed 2 devastating wars that could have threatened the whole of humanity. The world has changed in many ways: more industrialized, more advanced in technology, more progress in human development, etc. How would the Church deal with all these changes? Also, /scholarship tended to be behind Protestant scholarship, especially in terms of . Catholic theologians/thinkers who advocated new ways of thinking to deal with the modern world were looked upon with suspicion from Roman authorities. Some famous names were actually censored by Rome; had their teaching licenses revoked; only rehabilitated during/after the Council. ii. The Modernist crisis: This referred to the early part of the 20th cent, especially under the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X (d. 1914). Many Catholic thinkers were suspected of having been influenced by “modernist” ideas. Anything “modern” was considered bad and opposed to Catholic teaching. As a result of this, Catholic theology really fell behind. iii. The (1869-70): convoked and approved by Pope Pius IX (d. 1878). This council took place when Europe experienced the severe crisis/threat of separation between Church and State. The were being lost in —thus reducing the role of the to spiritual leaders (before the loss of the Papal States, popes were temporal leaders as well). Vat I strengthened the (spiritual) authority of the popes by having defined the doctrines of papal infallibility and of jurisdiction. The Council never officially ended because Rome was invaded in 1870. iv. The (1545-1563): in many ways, Trent was even more important than Vat I when we want to discuss Vat II. The Church up to the 1960’s was the Church of Trent, the Tridentine Church. Along with the Council of Trent, we have to mention the Protestant in the 16th cent. v. The Medieval Councils vi. The Councils of the Early Church: we might as well go back and discuss briefly the councils of the Early Church in order to arrive at Vat II. vii. The 3 popes—Pius XII (1939-58), John XXIII (1958-63), Paul VI (1963-78): the names of these 3 popes are always associated with the 2nd Vat Council…

Christianity as a religion began with the person of Jesus Christ. Early followers of Jesus believed that he was the Son of God, sent for the of the world; born of the Mary, died and rose from the dead. Those who had the first-hand experience of the preaching/teaching of Jesus were known as the Apostles—the 12 men he chose to carry out his task of proclaiming the . After the death of Jesus, it was related that the Apostles went their separate ways to preach the Good news and to form their own church communities. The apostles were the recipients of God’s revelation, fully manifested in the person of Jesus. In this sense they were the first “teachers” of the Christian faith. Together the apostles formed a so-called body, or college. Peter undoubtedly held the honor of primacy among this college. Unfortunately for the early Church, problems arose. Different communities of believers had disagreements over different issues. This is where the councils came into play. The (Acts 15) was a gathering of “apostles and presbyters” to decide on the question of whether or not Gentile converts to Christianity had to undergo circumcision and other precepts of the Jewish Mosaic Law. After debates and consultations, the answer was in the negative. Peter, Paul, James of Jerusalem, and were some of the figures involved. The classical formula from Acts 15 is: “It is the decision of the , and ours also…” Later, bishops would appeal to this formula at councils when they formulated rules/teachings for the Church. After the death of the apostles, the ministry continued through their successors—the so- called bishops of the Church. The Christian Church continued to grow in the first few centuries, despite severe persecutions from the Roman Empire. Christianity breathed a sigh of relief in 313, the fateful year for Christians when the pagan Roman Constantine tolerated the religion with the Edict of Milan—though Constantine himself did not embrace Christianity until the end of his life. He moved from Rome to the eastern part of the Empire, , a city named after himself, which was to be an altera Roma (the 2nd Rome, or the other Rome). Constantinople was to be the capital of the East, while Rome was the center of the West. Already in the early Church, there were differences between -speaking Christians of the West (west of Rome, like , , etc) and Greek-speaking Christians of the East (modern-day Turkey, Greece, Mediterranean area). These differences would eventually result in the and separation in later centuries between West and East.

EARLY ECUMENICAL COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH: 1. The Council of Nicae (325): The word “ecumenical” does not have the meaning as in the “ecumenical movement” or in “.” What it means, when applied to a council, is that a significant portion of the episcopate (body of bishops) worldwide is represented. The first official was Nicae (modern-day Turkey). It dealt with a , . The priest Arius of Alexandria (Egypt) taught that the Son was not co-eternal with the Father. For Arius, there was a time when the Son was NOT. To settle problems, Constantine (not the pope) convoked a council to be held at Nicae. Most of the 200 + bishops were Eastern; very few came from the West—though Constantine chose Nicae as the place to make it more accessible to Western bishops. The main player of Nicea was St. —the defender of the full of Christ the Son. He and others fought against Arius in defining the full divinity of the Son—that the Son is of the same substance as the Father (όμοουσιος—homoousios). They also set the date for . At this Council, a brief was formulated. 2. Council of Constantinople I (381): Convoked by Emperor Theodosius in 380. The Arians (who deny the full divinity of the Son) are logically and naturally those who would also deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit. This Council was convoked against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Again, all (or most) bishops were eastern. The divinity of the Spirit was defined. The Creed, now known as the Nicea-Constantinople Creed, was formulated. It says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (without mention of the Son). Later the Western Church would add the phrase —from the Father AND the Son. 3. (431): convoked by Emperor Theodosius II with the agreement of Celestine I, the bishop of Rome, in 430. The 2 main actors were Nestorius, of Constan- tinople, and St. Cyril, . Again, the Eastern Church was the main influence here. St. , the greatest thinker from the West, was invited. But he died shortly before the Council began. This Council was not pretty, with all the bribes and clever political maneuvers to win favors from different parties. Against Nestorius, and in favor with Cyril, the Council defined the doctrine of Mary as Mother of God (), rather than simply the Mother of Christ (Christotokos)—again, emphasizing the divinity of the personhood of Christ. 4. (451): this was the first “ecumenical council” that the West had a major role to play. It was St. Pope Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, who appeared on the stage. But still the number of Western bishops was very small compared to the Eastern ones. Leo himself was not present, but sent legates to represent him. Chalcedon taught the doctrine of the 2 natures (divine and human) in the one Person of Christ. Thus —the heresy that Christ had only one nature—was rejected at this Council. The first 4 ecumenical councils were the most important Councils for the Church— recognized today and honored by both West and East. Pope St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) spoke of their importance as if they were the Four . Another noteworthy early Council was Constantinople III (680) which condemned the heresy of monotheletism—that Christ had only one will. This Council condemned those who favored this heresy, among whom was Pope Honorius I. In other words, Pope Honorius was a heretic. This was important in later church history as far as papal infallibility/primacy was concerned. The first 7-8 Councils of the Church were truly “ecumenical”, in the sense that bishops from both East and West were invited—though Eastern bishops dominated. There were also “local ” (councils) of regional bishops that had lasting importance for the Western Church: e.g., the /Council of (North Africa) in 418 that dealt with the questions of grace, , etc. These councils were regional, local, and not considered ecumenical. In the , when West and East had become more and more autonomous, there were also councils. But these councils, especially the Western ones, are more accurately known as the “general” rather than “ecumenical” councils. The general councils of the Middle Ages dealt with the problems of the Western Church: such as , clerical marriage, papal powers, etc. It was an age when Church and State both tried to seize power. There was a constant conflict between the papacy and the Empire. Popes became more and more powerful, as they were not only spiritual, but also temporal leaders. The gap between West and East was so wide that union was seemingly impossible. In 1054, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, speaking in the name of Pope Leo IX, went with a few other legates to Constantinople and rudely placed the bull of excommunication against Patriarch Caerularius of Constantinople during a sacred liturgy. [Humbert was a contemporary of St. Peter Damien. But Peter was more flexible in his approach to the question of Church and State—he wanted cooperation between the 2; whereas Humbert favored a complete domination of Church over State, of a strong centralized papacy over the temporal powers.] In reality, Leo IX was dead already before the infamous act. In return, Michael did not hesitate excommunicate his opponents. This was known as the Great Schism that divided . For the most part, the medieval councils were not significant in terms of doctrines defined. One notable council was Lateran IV (1225) that coined the term “” when applied to the real Presence of Jesus in the . In general, these medieval councils were convoked to solve internal problems of the Western Church. It must be noted that the papacy really grew in prestige and power. Medieval popes no longer followed Pope Gregory the Great’s model as servus servorum Dei (servants of the servants of God); instead they wanted control over Church as well as State. During the Middle Ages, there was the rise of the so-called “conciliarist” theory. The conciliarists held that the Council was above the Pope. had its effects to the Reformation and even until Vat II. Certain medieval councils even deposed popes (or anti- popes). In order to claim absolute authority over all matters, medieval popes were opposed to the conciliarist theory.

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-63): Without a doubt, Trent was the most important council of the (late) Middle Ages. It is not possible to have a good grasp of Vat II without some understanding of Tridentine Catholicism. Like all earlier councils, Trent was a response to certain problems/ of the day: in this case, a reaction against the Protestant Reformation (Ref). The Ref probably began first with Jans Hus, rather than with . But it was Luther who brought the Ref to light. Luther was a young pious Augustinian /priest who struggled scrupulously with his conscience. He was not impressed with the idea of . preachers were common in the 16th century. The money was needed to build churches, to raise funds for bishops and the pope, etc. Preachers preached that people could free their relatives from Purgatory if they put money in the baskets, etc. In 1517, the young Luther challenged this indulgence theory with his 95 theses in Latin. These were intended for scholarly discussion, and not for the public. Despite the theses, Luther still wanted to remain faithful to Rome. Against his will, these theses were translated into German and made public. This only added more fuel to the flame because of the anti-Roman sentiments in Germany. In a short time, Luther became a hero. Unfortunately for Rome, was too preoccupied with Italian political affairs that he neglected this whole affair—Leo himself had no interest in theology anyway. Meanwhile Luther also changed his understanding of the faith. He no longer respected the papacy; no longer believed in the sacramental system; denied the idea of ; advocated the common priesthood of all believers (as opposed to the rigid Roman distinction between clergy and laity). More importantly, Luther held that it was faith in Christ alone that saves him, not his external good words—thus justification by faith alone. Also, scripture alone was the norm by which this faith is grounded. Unlike Jans Hus who was burned at the stake, Luther received the support of the German princes and escaped the penalty. It took the Roman Church a long time to call a council against the so-called Protestant Ref. This was only understandable because of the political and religious instabilities in Europe during that time. A council was convoked at Trent in 1545. There were several interruptions as the Council stopped and was reconvoked several times until it ended in 1563. Trent was the beginning of the so-called Counter Reformation period, as Catholics waged a war against the Ref. Trent upheld the doctrine of scripture and tradition (as opposed to scripture alone); put the number of definitively at 7; defined the doctrine of original sin and justification by faith and works (as opposed to faith alone); defined the doctrine of the cooperation of human will with the , etc. Also, the Council mandated the establishment of seminaries. It also appealed to the , St. ’s (4th cent) translation of the into Latin as the standard translation. The Vulgate was used for centuries until Vat II. After the Council, St. commissioned the publication of the Roman Cate- chism. He also oversaw the Missale Romanum. This had become the standard until the 2nd Vat Council. [These days, there still exists the , which is the Missale Romanum implemented after the Council of Trent]. In general the Tridentine mentality was a defensive mentality against the Protestants, against modernism, etc.

VATICAN I (1869-70) AND POPE PIUS IX (1846-78): The ((Fr Rev) 1789) was the most devastating event for the Church after the Ref. The Church would not be the same again. The Rev destroyed church institutions in Europe. It called for an end to ecclesiastical domination over the State. In France in particular, there were 2 kinds of church: one loyal to Rome, the other governed by the State. As the gap between Church and State grew wider and wider, popes were on the edge of losing their temporal power—something they had enjoyed for centuries. The Rev also called for individual liberty and freedom of conscience. Around 1800, the Frenchman Bonaparte rose to power in Europe. He declared himself Emperor of the new Empire. He conquered the Papal States; was excommunicated by Pope Pius VII; held Pius VII captive in France (1808) for 6 years until his defeat in Waterloo in 1814. Though the Papal States were restored to the Pope after Napoleon’s defeat, European Catholicism would never be the same again. The devastating effects of the Fr Rev could not be undone. The threat of separation between Church and State, at the Church’s expense, was real. It was in these circumstances that Pius IX (1846-78), commonly known Pio Nono, came into the picture. Widely known as a liberal, he was thought to have possessed the ability to reconcile religion with modern/liberal European culture. But the different revolutions in 1848 changed everything. Rome was surrounded by mobs; and the Pope had to escape Rome. This experience really changed Pius’ attitude toward liberalism. Now he could no longer trust in the liberal ideas of modernity. This led to his ever-more adamant tendency to “centralization.” To emphasize his teaching authority, Pio Nono defined the of the in 1854. In 1864, he issued the so-called , listing the different “errors” of modern time: such as liberalism, rationalism, etc. Most importantly, it condemned those who advocated separation between Church and State. Supposedly Pio Nono once said: “If wants me to lose the Papal States, let him take them from me. I cannot hand them over.” In 1864, Pius also called a council to be held at the Vatican. It did not begin until 1869. The foremost discussion topic at the Council was to be the question of papal primacy/ infallibility. Before we go further, let’s take a look at 2 main groups of Catholics during the 18th- 19th centuries, the so-called “age of liberalism:” the Ultramontanists and the Gallicans. : In Latin, this word literally means “beyond the mountains.” The word “mountains” here refers to the famous Alps, running through Italy and other parts of Europe. In the Middle Ages a non-Italian pope elected would be called papa ultramontano—that is, a pope “beyond Italy.” In the age of liberalism/secularism, the Ultramontanists were those who, despite being far from Rome (in France, Spain, etc.), still looked up to Rome as the center of their life. They upheld the pope in high esteem. They advocated papal primacy in spiritual (other-worldly) as well as in temporal (this-worldly) orders. They placed a far greater emphasis on the pope, even at the expense of their local bishops. In general, these people were considered conservative: people not disposed to dialogue with liberalism. They wanted Church and State together, etc… They were mainly Italians, Spaniards, some French, Portuguese. : The word is derived from the ecclesia gallicana, the French Church. But the Gallicans were not always necessarily French. The word can also refer to, especially the , Dutch, Belgians, etc. Gallicanism was not a new phenomenon during the age of liberalism. It started centuries earlier when French bishops/clergy wanted a “decentralized” church government—independent from Rome. They did respect the pope and recognized his authority; but they did not want the Church of Rome to interfere in their local/diocesan affairs. In contrast to the Ultramontanists, Gallicans did not have to look toward Rome for guidance—but rather to their local bishops/churches. In general, the 19th-cent Gallicans had an open/liberal attitude toward having the Church dialogue with the modern world, modern science, etc. They wanted the Church to respond to the Enlightenment and liberalism by embracing new methods in theology, biblical studies, etc.—as opposed to the old medieval methods. At Vat I, the majority of the 700 Western bishops worldwide favored a definition of papal infallibility—though not all of them were Ultramontanes. One of the most famous of them was (d. 1892), the of Westminster (later named a cardinal)— himself a convert from the Anglican Church. Certainly Manning and his Ultramontane colleagues wanted an “exaggerated” and personal infallibility that would seemingly make every statement from the mouth of the pope “infallible.” [A more moderate ultramontane, the learned Cardinal Guidi (archbishop of Bologna), spoke to Pius IX about changing the heading from “The Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff” to “The Infallible Teaching Authority of the Roman Pontiff.” Guidi did not favor a personal infallibility—but one in which the pope would act in union with the bishops. Why? Because the bishops are the witnesses of the Tradition. At this point, it was related that Pius IX scolded the Cardinal and said: “Witnesses of the Tradition? I am the Tradition.” Nevertheless, in the end, Cardinal Guidi’s argument was taken into account as the Council did not define a personal infallibility, as Archbishop Manning and others had hoped.] Manning was one famous Englishman during the period. Cardinal (1801-90) was the other. Like Manning, Newman was a convert from . He certainly was not an ultramontanist. Neither was he a Gallican in any sense. He was not a bishop, so he did not participate in the Council—later in his life he was made a “cardinal”—but was never a bishop. He was invited to sit at the Council as a peritus (theological expert), but he declined because of his limitations in languages. Newman was an inopportunist—one who thought that the definition of papal infallibility was inopportune. While the majority of the bishops favored the definition, the minority of bishops—like Newman—were also inopportunists. Newman was not popular and widely understood during his time. But he was a man way ahead of his time. In the 20th cent, he was generally recognized as the “father of Vatican II.” His depth of thought was surpassed by no one in the 19th cent, not even by the famous German historical theologian Ignaz Döllinger. [I myself am not familiar with the thought of either Newman or Döllinger.] However, after the Council was dissolved in 1870, Newman and many so-called “inopportunists” accepted the conciliar teaching, whereas Döllinger and a few others (especially in Germany and the Netherlands) withdrew themselves from the Church because of papal infallibility. These people came to be known as the “Old Catholics,” a schimastic group. Anyway, the conservative majority (ultramontanists) certainly had their victory at Vat I, which was suspended (not ended) in 1870 when Rome was invaded. As Manning put it: “Dogma has triumphed over history.” But what is papal infallibility? According to the constitution , approved and promulgated on July 18/1870, when the Pope speaks ex and defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals, he is endowed with that gift of infallibility from the , promised to Peter; and thus such definitions are of themselves irreformable, and not dependent on the consent of the Church—the Latin text reads: “ideoque eiusmodi Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae, irreformabiles esse.” Pastor Aeternus also defines the doctrine of papal primacy of jurisdiction. That is, the Pope as head and pastor of the Church, is to have power over the whole Church in terms of jurisdiction (governance). This power is said to be supreme, ordinary and immediate. These 2 papal definitions at Vat I were welcomed by the ultramontanists, but posed a big stumbling block to and . Also they were often misinterpreted by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Catholics seemed to have attributed too much importance to the Pope without much regard for their local bishops. For them, the whole of Catholicism seemed to have been centered on the POPE. A few years after Vat I, Chancellor in Germany, in his attempt to subordinate the German Church, wrote a letter in which he gave the wrong interpretation to Vat I. He said that since the pope had universal jurisdiction over the whole Church, it means that the power of jurisdiction that belongs to the bishops would be absorbed by papal jurisdiction; and that the pope could do as he please with bishops and their local affairs. In this sense, the bishops are merely “secretaries” or “branches” or “instruments” of the pope in a centralized Rome. The German bishops immediately fired back. They agreed, with the Council, that the pope is the supreme head/pastor of the whole Church—but he is primarily the Bishop of Rome, and not of , Munich, or other dioceses. Thus, even the pope cannot interfere unnecessarily in the local affairs in other dioceses. In 1875, Pio Nono issued 2 statements, stating his full agreements with the German bishops on their correct interpretation of the Council. In other words, the Vat I Council never intended for the pope to be the absolute monarch. Pius IX died in 1878—after having been pope for 32 years, one of the longest papacies in history. He never left the Vatican after all the revolutions. He considered himself a “prisoner” of the Vatican as the Papal States in Italy were slipping away slowly. From then on, popes were no longer the mighty temporal leaders they once were in the Middle Ages. And yet, it may or may not seem ironic to historians that during a time when popes were losing their temporal powers, their spiritual power (papal primacy/infallibility) increased. Vat I was an important Council. When read and interpreted correctly, the teaching of Vat I is quite well balanced. But when carried to the extremes, one can very well get a distorted and one-sided image of papal infallibility that was never intended by the Council itself. As mentioned earlier, Vat I never officially ended. In 1870 it was suspended because of warfare. Vat I finished its teaching on the papacy (pope), but did not have a chance to discuss about the episcopacy (bishops). The schema on the bishops had yet to be discussed. This would be picked up at Vat II in the 1960’s. The Modernist Crisis and the 20th Century Pius IX (1846-78) Leo XIII (1878-1903) Giuseppe Sarto as St. Pius X (1903-14) Giacomo della Chiesa as Benedict XV (1914-22) Achille Ratti as Pius XI (1922-39) Eugenio Pacelli as Pius XII (1939-58) Angelo Roncalli as John XXIII (1958-63) Giovanni Baptista Montini as Paul VI (1963-78).

Leo XIII succeeded Pius IX as the bishop of Rome. Though himself not at all a liberal, Leo was more open to the question of reconciling Catholic faith with modernity. He has been remembered mostly for his famous (1891), the first one ever on social issues. It was issued as a response to the Industrial Revolution: with major points such as the right to private property (against socialism), rights of workers, and so on. He died in 1903. His Secretary of State (the most powerful person after the Pope himself), Cardinal Rampolla, was the favored candidate to succeed him. The French supported Rampolla, but the Austrians did not. The Austrian power used the ancient right of veto against Rampolla—thus he was not elected pope. Instead, Cardinal Giuseppe Sarto of Venice was elected and became Pius X. [After that Pius X abolished the veto right, thus stopping secular influences in papal election]. Pius X has been a pastor his whole life. He came from a poor family. As a priest/bishop, he devoted a great deal to ministry. As pope, he helped lower the age of communion for children to age 7. He also encouraged frequent communion among the faithful—at the age when holy communion was regarded as a reward rather than a remedy. His reputation for holiness was questioned by no one. Yet Pius X also mistrusted modernism/liberalism to such an extent that he basically closed the door to all new forms of scholarship, especially biblical scholarship. He also had no interest in ecumenism; and showed no open attitude toward the Protestants. [In 1910, he supposedly agreed to grant an audience to US President Theodore Roosevelt only if the latter would stop visiting the Methodist community in Rome. Accordingly Roosevelt declined]. Following the Protestants of the 19th and 20th cents, Catholic biblical scholars also began to explore the Bible more critically. Scholars began to examine the “real” historical Jesus and how that Jesus was different from the Christ of faith (the Jesus whom we know from Catechism classes). Scholars also questioned the traditional thesis that was the author of the Penta- teuch (first 5 books of the OT); or that was literally in the belly of the fish for 3 days; or that the Magnificat was really from the mouth of Mary; or whether St. Paul was really the author of all the “letters” (some of those letters might have been written by Paul’s disciples, but using his name); etc. Scholars began to use the historical-critical method in biblical studies. [It must be noted that Protestant scholars had done this long before]. Pius X lost no time to condemn these tendencies in scholarship. He decreed that seminary professors and candidates for priesthood take an oath against modernism. They have to profess, among other things, that Moses was the historical author of the Pentateuch. In 1907 he issued 2 encyclicals that condemned Modernism. The famous Irish Fr. George Tyrell and French Fr. Alfred Loisy were both excommunicated for their modernist teachings. Mgsr. Umberto Benigni was the leader of the famous Sodalitum Pianum, a secret society that oversaw the suppression of any “modernist” trait around Catholic dioceses in Europe. No church official, no matter how high in rank, was safe from this society. This so-called witch-hunt against modernism resulted in many tragedies; including removal of persons from their offices, teaching positions, and even priesthood. This only ended when Giacomo della Chiesa became Pope Benedict XV in 1914. But the effects of this modernist witch hunt were soundly felt in the Catholic scholarly world as it led to an intellectual sterility for the next few decades. Catholic scholarship, especially in the field of biblical/scriptural studies, really fell behind its Protestant counterparts.