The Oath Against Modernism

[Evangetholic]

Could you take this oath in good conscience?

 

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM

 

Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.

 

To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

 

I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. 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. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

 

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

 

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

 

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

Edited March 7, 2013 by Evangetholic

[Nihil Obstat]

Fo' sho'.

[Evangetholic]

Fo' sho'.

 

Same. :winner: We Just might "win the race" old boy.

[Nihil Obstat]

We have already won. This is just the very long, very difficult victory lap. :smile3:

[Evangetholic]

Well,

 

Our Lady of Victory, pray for us

 

and then

 

surely the Victory is all but guarranteed

 

 

[Evangetholic]

.

[Papist]

[BigJon16]

 

idgi

 

 

 

 

Jeeze, Papist. You gotta stop making obscure references.. 

 

[Papist]

idgi

 

 

 

 

Jeeze, Papist. You gotta stop making obscure references.. 

What is obscure about "Oh noooo"? You never heard the phrase?

[mortify]

I posted the same thing several years ago and I received  a warning for it! Ah how things have changed!

[BigJon16]

What is obscure about "Oh noooo"? You never heard the phrase?

 

 

 

Nope.

[Basilisa Marie]

Nope, sorry, I couldn't unless you're going to force me. 

 

I don't like the language of it.

 

And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated

 

Implies that atheists are willfully ignorant, which isn't true.  God CAN be known through light of reason and through witnessing creation, but God cannot be scientifically demonstrated. 

 

 

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 first sentence is a historical falsehood, but only works when interpreted in light of the second sentence.  Our faith does not contradict itself, but our understanding of it develops, so saying "exactly the same meaning" is untrue.  I doubt Peter understood the Hypostatic Union, that the Son was eternally begotten of the Father, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.  Our faith's meaning has grown, and thus has not remained exactly the same. 

 

[Debra Little]

no prob.  this modernist stuff makes me sick at heart.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Debra Little

[Evangetholic]

I do not think the goal of the Oath is today development of doctrine.

 

Now on to error, I think Scripture and the Church, generally, until 5 minutes ago, historically understood most error to be at least in part willful. I tend to agree. Iexisted outside of the Church for something like five  years after my heart started whispering "But it's true just the same."

[Nihil Obstat]

I do not think the goal of the Oath is today development of doctrine.

 

Now on to error, I think Scripture and the Church, generally, until 5 minutes ago, historically understood most error to be at least in part willful. I tend to agree. Iexisted outside of the Church for something like five  years after my heart started whispering "But it's true just the same."

I think we have to distinguish between formal and material heresy. The difference, as I understand it, basically boils down to culpability. A person may be a material heretic without being truly culpable for any number of reasons.