To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
I N. 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 (cf. 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. . .
Exposition: "I N. 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."
Even in the wording of this first line one can see a contradiction of the Modernist Catholic standpoint. The use of the word "definition" is very important in the Catholic Church's view of what it teaches. Namely, all that it teaches it has really always taught, but it is called to define more precisely due to changing circumstances. One of the main tenets of Modernism is that what the Church believes changes over time and one of the mechanisms for this are those definitions.
"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 (cf. 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:"
This means that that the Catholic teaching is that anyone, even without being told by other people about God, or by hearing it from the Catholic Church, can figure out that God really does exist based on observation and reasoning. While the Catholic Church believes some things can not be known about him without him telling us that, it does not believe God is completely uknowable in any way by our human mind. Basically in the same way that we can use our mind and observation to figure out the world is round, the Catholic Church believes that the existence of God can be known in that same manner. This and the next statements in the anti modernist oath are to counter the general idea God can't be really known for sure, and that faith is a feeling.
"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."
It is not the Catholic Church's position that they learned about God and the ultimate fate of man by a sort of intuition, feeling, or fantasy; but that a man called Jesus said he was God, and proved it by doing miracles (which are things only God could do). This concept of divine revelation proved by miracles is the crux of the reasoning of the Catholic Church. According to the Church, the Apostles did not follow Jesus simply because he seemed nice, but because did things in front of their very eyes which proved he was God. These Apostles then spread that news and his teaching, and this is what the Catholic Church is.
"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."
A note on the use of the world "real" in this line. One can deny that Jesus did not really exist and was not "real" and "historical", and therefor not follow the Catholic religion. But the Catholic Modernist would agree that Jesus was not "real" and "historical" but still follow the Catholic Religion anyway, saying that it was good for it to exist because it made people happy, fed the poor, etc. It is to contradict this mentality that the word "real" was used here.
"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."
This idea of the evolution of dogmas is central to the Modernist thinking. This allows them to believe something different and not be contradicted by older writings, documents, etc. that state the contrary. This makes them unique in the history of heresies: previously heretics would either state that they had maintained the true teaching from time immemorial, or that the present teachers had turned wrong. Modernism allowed for the past teachers to be right AND the Modernists to be right as well, because "right" itself changes.
"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."
This is the same point made again, to be as explicit as possible.
"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."
This passage is a refrence to textual criticism of the Bible. The idea of trying to understand the Bible by reading it without any regard to any external information known or that can be known about it.
"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;"
Central to the Modernist idea of the evolution of dogmas was that the dogmas be tailored to the current times. For example, if everyone presently wants women to be priests, then the dogma concerning the priesthood should change.
wikipedia.org dumped 2003-03-17 with terodump