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. 1:19), 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. . .
|