Pope St Pius X warned us. He saw the infection long before the fever hit. Modernism, he said in Pascendi (1907), splits faith and science like warring kingdoms–but only so that one may quietly enslave the other. Science, they say, concerns the “reality of phenomena,” and faith must confine itself to the unknowable and invisible.

It sounds peaceful enough–like a boundary treaty between two reasonable nations–but it’s actually a bloodless revolution. Before we dismiss Pius X as another pre-Vatican II curmudgeon, it’s worth reading his words in full, which we’ve been doing–and realizing he diagnosed, over a century ago, what we now call “settled science.” Here is the particular section of Pascendi that speaks specifically to faith and science. It is dense, but I invite you to fight through it and maybe read it a couple of times if need be:

Faith and Science

16. Having reached this point…we have sufficient material in hand to enable us to see the relations which Modernists establish between faith and science, including history also under the name of science. And in the first place it is to be held that the object of the one is quite extraneous to and separate from the object of the other. For faith occupies itself solely with something which science declares to be unknowable for it. Hence each has a separate field assigned to it: science is entirely concerned with the reality of phenomena, into which faith does not enter at all; faith on the contrary concerns itself with the divine reality which is entirely unknown to science. Thus the conclusion is reached that there can never be any dissension between faith and science, for if each keeps on its own ground they can never meet and therefore never be in contradiction. And if it be objected that in the visible world there are some things which appertain to faith, such as the human life of Christ, the Modernists reply by denying this. For though such things come within the category of phenomena, still in as far as they are lived by faith and in the way already described have been by faith transfigured and disfigured, they have been removed from the world of sense and translated to become material for the divine. Hence should it be further asked whether Christ has wrought real miracles, and made real prophecies, whether He rose truly from the dead and ascended into heaven, the answer of agnostic science will be in the negative and the answer of faith in the affirmative – yet there will not be, on that account, any conflict between them. For it will be denied by the philosopher as philosopher, speaking to philosophers and considering Christ only in His historical reality; and it will be affirmed by the speaker, speaking to believers and considering the life of Christ as lived again by the faith and in the faith.

Faith Subject to Science

17. Yet, it would be a great mistake to suppose that, given these theories, one is authorised to believe that faith and science are independent of one another. On the side of science the independence is indeed complete, but it is quite different with regard to faith, which is subject to science not on one but on three grounds. For in the first place it must be observed that in every religious fact, when you take away the divine reality and the experience of it which the believer possesses, everything else, and especially the religious formulas of it, belongs to the sphere of phenomena and therefore falls under the control of science. Let the believer leave the world if he will, but so long as he remains in it he must continue, whether he like it or not, to be subject to the laws, the observation, the judgments of science and of history. Further, when it is said that God is the object of faith alone, the statement refers only to the divine reality not to the idea of God. The latter also is subject to science which while it philosophises in what is called the logical order soars also to the absolute and the ideal. It is therefore the right of philosophy and of science to form conclusions concerning the idea of God, to direct it in its evolution and to purify it of any extraneous elements which may become confused with it. Finally, man does not suffer a dualism to exist in him, and the believer therefore feels within him an impelling need so to harmonise faith with science, that it may never oppose the general conception which science sets forth concerning the universe.

Thus it is evident that science is to be entirely independent of faith, while on the other hand, and notwithstanding that they are supposed to be strangers to each other, faith is made subject to science. All this…is in formal opposition with the teachings of Our Predecessor, Pius IX, where he lays it down that: In matters of religion it is the duty of philosophy not to command but to serve, but not to prescribe what is to be believed but to embrace what is to be believed with reasonable obedience, not to scrutinise the depths of the mysteries of God but to venerate them devoutly and humbly.

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and to them may be applied the words of another Predecessor of Ours, Gregory IX., addressed to some theologians of his time: Some among you, inflated like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the sense of the heavenly pages . . .to the philosophical teaching of the rationals, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science . . . these, seduced by strange and eccentric doctrines, make the head of the tail and force the queen to serve the servant.

The Methods of Modernists

18. This becomes still clearer to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In the writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate now one doctrine now another so that one would be disposed to regard them as vague and doubtful. But there is a reason for this, and it is to be found in their ideas as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they write history they pay no heed to the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechise the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between theological and pastoral exegesis and scientific and historical exegesis. So, too, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, when they treat of philosophy, history, criticism, feeling no horror at treading in the footsteps of Luther, they are wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines, or the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, guided by the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly criticise the Church because of her sheer obstinacy in refusing to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, after having blotted out the old theology, endeavour to introduce a new theology which shall follow the vagaries of their philosophers.

That excerpt provided, this piece today continues my ongoing work on Pius X’s landmark encyclical, a document that has turned action plan into prophecy we are living out as we speak.

COVID, Feeelings, and Christianity

While faith is made to whisper in private, science now thunders from the pulpit, yes inside the Church, but more so in the more insidious and powerful press of the mob–who in turn go largely unchallenged on the pulpit. It claims the world of sight and sound, and the Church–ever eager to appear intelligent and “relevant” in the age of data, not to mention agreeable to neighborhood friends at weekend parties–bows low before the lab coat.

We continue to live this inversion because we’ve become desensitized to it. It happened very directly not that long ago, and still, people continue to double down on their previous mistakes in an embarrassing effort to save face, an insistence born of none other than a Luciferian pride.

During the “totally real and deadly pandemic” (h/t Chris Paul), “trust the science” became the new Credo, and masks became sacraments of civic virtue and, dare I say, charity. The totalitarians always steal the language of true virtue and religion to ensure they continue their nefarious manipulations unseen.

It is their religion.

In “Let’s Revisit That Mask They Were Insisting We Wear,” a 2023 article that reminded readers of truths many of us “conspiracy theorists” were saying early on in 2020, I said it then and I’ll say it again: the ritual was never about the cloth of that useless mask. It was about compliance–and a test to see just how far we could be duped. Here is a passage from that article:

A neurosurgeon has come out to claim that not only are face masks unnecessary, but actually “pose serious risks to the healthy.”

It is likely the Karens will have a field day discrediting this man. And all the Facebook geniuses too….

A lot of shame and silence back then. Call the truth seeker a crazy conspiracy theorist lunatic–that ought to take care of it.

Such an assault on freedom of speech is a necessary component of an operation that must advance its own propaganda in order to shift ideologies and alter human behavior. That is, at its core, Operation Mockingbird.

The more you know, the more you can fight back if and when something like this happens again. The powers-that-be are already talking about the next pandemic, and we have to be ready to read the situation better than we read the last one. We are all in this together.

The Modernist doesn’t abolish belief–he replaces it with performance, with sentiment, with the feelings of the moment.

Again, with “religion.”

And anyone who steps out of line is … anathema.

Outward submission to the mob becomes the new form of faith, a badge of honor in our shout for Barrabas when Pilate asks who we choose. It wasn’t a pandemic of disease back in 2020; it was a pandemic of obedience–and not the one commanded by God. “Love thy neighbor,” they told us, which now meant “comply, conform, confess the creed of fear.”

Do you see how they steal the language of the Bible, of goodness, of Christ himself?

Most diocesan bishops–poisoned by the wells of Modernism just as Pius X had warned–knelt to it faster than the faithful were ever allowed to kneel for the Eucharist.

And many of them still say Traditional Catholics are “rigid” for having the audacity to actually kneel before the one true King in the sacred space of the altar.

Climate Change, Feeelings, and Christianity

The same pseudo-theology that brought us charity toward neighbor during the COVID circus infects the climate cult. The altar changed, but the ritual stayed the same. From the mask to the carbon footprint, the modern conscience kneels before data.

In “Use This Scientist’s Confession to Red-Pill Friends About Climate Change,” we called it what it is: a counterfeit religion with the refusal to believe the propaganda for original sin and bureaucrats and paid “scientists” for saviors. Yet this is what Pius X diagnosed word for word: faith subject to science, revelation rewritten to fit the mood of modern philosophy. Here is a passage from that article:

The Hegelian Dialectic is alive and well in America, which is why so many of us are recognizing the problem-reaction solution pattern in everything, it seems, including the politics behind “climate change.”

An adjacent problem with the Hegelian is the binary trap the government-media apparatus has, over decades and decades, trained the American people to fall into. The Greeks called this phenomenon the either-or fallacy of argument. Put overly simplistically, it is the efforts of the ruling elites to dwindle any complex conversation about a given issue into a single pair of arguments–a binary–forcing the people to choose sides and, ultimately, ignore key points worth considering from the opposition’s point of view.

It is a trap to keep us snapping at one another instead of turning our heads to the true enemy–

Them.

This is why so many people emotionally retreat immediately to their camps in debates like this. For a portion of the population, climate change is a total hoax. For another portion, it is a catastrophe in waiting.

Either-or.

Nearly the entire body of clerics have caught this virus. There are some in traditional Catholic circles who claim this apostasy is worse than the Arian heresy of the fourth century, the claim that Christ is not divine, a claim that poisoned ninety percent of all Catholics. Yes, you read that correctly. And largely because of one man–one man and the power of God behind him–the Arian heresy and all its “data in numbers” was defeated:

During the fourth century, the Church was plagued by a pernicious new heresy that denied Christ’s divinity: Arianism. Not only was St. Athanasius at the forefront of the debates over this heresy in the nascent stages of his career, but he would continue to battle Arianism most of his life, finding himself victim to vicious slanders and attacks. As we celebrate his memorial this week, we invite you to learn more about his fight against heresy, his invaluable contributions to the faith, and where you can find him portrayed in the Basilica….

Over the course of Athanasius’ lifetime, the series of false accusations and legal battles against him culminated in five different exiles. After spending 17 years in exile, near the end of his life, he was invited back to serve as bishop of Alexandria. He spent his final days in this office before passing away in 373. In addition to his tireless battles against Arianism, he also created the first list of books to be included in the Christian Bible. His selection was confirmed as canon by St. Jerome following the translation of the Scriptures into the Vulgate, with no additions or subtractions made.

If the mob had been trusted back then, if the database was the majority as it is in democracies, Jesus Christ’s divinity would have been eliminated.

Thus, let no man tell you that the truth of the Catholic religion has anything to do with numbers, or democracy where everyone has a vote, as we have become purposely programmed to believe. This is the spirit of the Modernist, the spirit of recent “popes,” who believe their job is to formulate religious words to meet the needs swelling up amongst the people. They believe the Catholic faith is up for debate, for breaking down, for reshaping.

It is why you have Leo XIV saying things like there won’t be changes to doctrine or dogma until there is a change among the attitude of the people.

It is why you have synods.

It is why poll numbers on how many Catholics believe in contraception or abortion or the Real Presence are irrelevant.

This is not Catholicism. It is not Christianity.

Francis spoke in the dialect of the Modernists as well, treating environmental policy as moral dogma, his “seamless garment” theology tying salvation to recycling bins. It’s all feeling, no fire–mercy without conversion, compassion without truth, conscience without Christ. And Leo is right there in front of us, following in his footsteps.

It is a theology so inclusive and so tolerant that it includes the serpent of Genesis himself.

Final Words

The real heresy here isn’t in climate charts or medical mandates–it’s in the hierarchy and power of the mob they presume. Science, which was meant to serve religion, now commands it.

The servant has seized the throne.

As the popes (I believe it was Pius IX) once taught, philosophy must not prescribe what to believe but embrace the supernatural with reasonable obedience. But the Modernist reverses the flow. He lets the microscope judge the miracle, the data redefine the divine. He makes the Creator accountable to the creature.

Inversion.

God must prove himself now–and by the rules of man.

That’s how you end up with a Church that apologizes for being supernatural.

That’s how you end up with a faith that measures truth by what trends, and calls obedience to social media algorithms “love of neighbor.”

This isn’t Christianity where Christ is King–it is technocratic Darwinism, a survival of the loudest baptized in the name of empathy, compassion, concern…even love.

And all of it–through a screen.

It’s all false. It’s the diabolical whispers of the serpent.

Truth, as Pius would teach, does not evolve by consensus.

It does not fear contradiction.

It does not “adapt” to new findings.

Truth is, period.

The rest is commentary–or worse, propaganda in the vestments of wolves.

In the beginning was not data, but the Word.

And until the Church speaks that Word again–without apology–science that isn’t really science at all will keep preaching in her place.