www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Oath Against Modernism

Here is the text of the "Oath Against Modernism" which, prior to Vatican II, was required to be taken by all clerics and theological/philosophical academics of the Catholic Church. If this were required today, I wonder how many modern "theologians" in the West would be "flushed out"? Dn. Robert


http://www.unavoce.org/oath.htm

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. . .

Father Deacon Robert,

Do you think that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI would be able to adhere to this oath in its entirety as St. Pius X intended it to be adhered to? I can think of a number of statements from both of them that could be condemned by this oath. Doesn't this oath suggest the, now antiquated, notion that Jesus personally instructed Peter and the apostles about the papacy, its primacy and infallibility, and also other doctrines in the Roman Catholic Church, which clearly are developments and have not always been professed and understood by the Church? Wasn't the notion of doctrinal development eventually embraced because history does refute the claim that Jesus basically handed the apostles a copy of the baltimore catechism and told them to go preach? I know, perhaps, I'm making a straw man here, but prior to the acceptance of the notion of doctrinal development, you did have Church apologists arguing that Jesus did spell out papal infallibility, purgatory, the immaculate conception of Mary, etc. to the apostles and the Church was simply proclaiming everything the apostles believed from the beginning.

Joe

I am glad that you see that you've constructed a strawman here.

The idea of development of doctrine is grounded in the fact that the truth does not change over time, only the clarity of our understanding of that truth. The words may and do change but the truth does not.

Mary

Dn. Robert

The time has come for me to take a break from the forum. I speak too much, yet think and listen too little and now I realize that some time is needed to sort out a number of things in my head.

Joe

Joe:

I think you're being a bit too hard on yourself.

Ryan

I agree.

You all are right of course. Such are the words of my spiritual Father. I'm not going to get into this debate because it will be fruitless. To be honest, I don't even know what the point of this thread was in the first place.

Joe

"esp. those parts of the Old Testament considered to be "Apocrypha" by Protestantism."

Fr. Deacon Robert,

I have heard that the case for the Jerusalem canon in favor of the Alexandrian canon has weakened some since some manuscripts (or fragments) that had been unknown in the Hebrew have been found in Hebrew with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Terry

Joe,

I for one appreciate your posts, even if we do not always agree.

Don't go, bro!

Gordo

Joe,

I enjoy your presence here. Take a break if needs be, but know that you are very welcomed here and you will be very missed while you are gone. Come back soon !

-- John

I hope to heaven, I have not said anything to drive you off because I enjoy your company immensely!!!

Mary

We must recognize that in certain cases two wise men can focus on the same idea, disagree, and both be perfectly justified by reason for their own position. The intellectual experience of each man would be different. Problems occur when one of the men fails to listen to past wisdom, but this obviously has not happened here. Mr. Joe should not be so hard on himself.

Perhaps a good read into the Church Fathers is in order? I have always found comfort in reading the Fathers, as the occasions of their writings shine light on what may be easy to take for granted in our own time.

It's amazing, isn't it, how wise those fathers were. It's especially amazing how those supposedly "primitive" ancient fathers really understood human nature and its weaknesses. I can read the Chrysostom sermons and they seem like they were written for today.

I am soon to purchase a large collection of their works in the English. I was dissuaded by their price, but then saw the two collections used for 25% of their retail price.

I look forward to browsing through them. I have encountered many of the Fathers in a bible commentary series I have been collecting. (It were they who most strongly brought me into communion with the Roman Church.)