That’s not correct. Dogmas
are absolutely true and irreformable. We can (and must) have 100% certitude in the dogmas of the Church. These must be adhered to with unshakable faith. If we are to maintain (as the Modernists do) that dogmas are nothing but an
attempt to state the truth by a fallible human beings, it will destroy the certitude of faith. We don’t believe something simply because the Church teaches it; we believe it because what the Church has defined is true. What you wrote above sounds very similar to how Pius X described the Modernists idea of dogma. This is what he said.
Pope St. Pius X:
"We have thus reached one of the principal points in the Modernist’s system, namely, the origin and the nature of dogma. For they place the origin of dogma in those primitive and simple formulas, which, under a certain aspect, are necessary to faith; for revelation, to be truly such, requires the clear knowledge of God in the consciousness. But dogma itself, they apparently hold, strictly consists in the secondary formulas .
To ascertain the nature of dogma, we must first find the relation which exists between the religious formulas and the religious sense. This will be readily perceived by anyone who holds that these formulas have no other purpose than to furnish the believer with a means of giving to himself an account of his faith. These formulas therefore stand midway between the believer and his faith; in their relation to the faith they are the inadequate expression of its object, and are usually called symbols; in their relation to the believer they are mere instruments.
Hence [according to the Modernists] it is quite impossible to maintain that they [Dogmas] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. **Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. **
13.** Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles.**
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm
Once again I must disagree. Man is capable of knowing good and evil, and it is not a temptation to realize this fact. When the devil told Eve she would know good and evil as a consequence of eating the forbidden fruit, this was a temptation for her because she only knew good at the time. One of the consequences of original sin is that we now know both good and evil.
Prior to the fall, evil did not exist in the world; today it does. Since we are rational beings, we have the ability to judge, and therefore to determine good from evil; in fact, the natural law, which is stamped upon our reason (Romans 2:15), enables us to know what is good and what is evil instinctively. As soon as a person arrives at the use of reason, they are able to judge good from evil and must act accordingly. If man was not able to judge good from evil, it would be unjust for God to punish him when he sinned.
