 |
| Pope Paul VI |
I recently came
across the oath against the errors of modernism - Sacrorum Antistitum[1] –
that His Holiness, Pope St. Pius X, issued in 1910 and which he mandated “all
clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in
philosophical-theological seminaries” should swear. (I include the entire oath
at the end of this document for those who wish to read it.)
It is
interesting to note that all of those who participated in Vatican II would have
taken this Oath Against Modernism, since it was only in 1967, after Vatican II,
that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith rescinded the requirement
to take the oath. It should however also be noted that although the taking of
the oath is no longer compulsory, it is not in anyway prohibited and there are
today still some clergy who take the oath voluntarily.
Having learned
of this cessation of the requirement to take the oath, especially since it
occurred so soon after Vatican II, I couldn’t help but give some thought to
what the Church has experienced since Vatican II and the rescission of this
oath: a significant reduction in vocations to the priesthood and religious
life; Catholic Schools failing to catechise children in the truths of the
Catholic Faith; a loss of belief in the Real Presence; an attack on the
sanctity and the permanence of traditional marriage; a significant drop off in
the use of the Sacrament of Confession; shocking priestly and episcopal
homosexual and paedophile sex scandals.
In 1972 Pope
Paul VI had this to say with reference to Vatican II: “We believed that after
the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But
instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness of searching
and uncertainties ... And how did this come about? We will confide to you the
thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, ... that there has
been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil... It
is as if from some mysterious crack ... the smoke of Satan has entered the
Temple of God.”[2]
My research soon
revealed that there are some in the Church who believe that the “crack”, to
which Pope Paul VI refers, may in fact have been created precisely because of
the cessation of the requirement to take the Oath Against Modernism.
I myself cannot
help but wonder whether there could in fact be some truth in this contention.
It is after all blatantly obvious, as far as I am concerned, how Modernism has
and is working to destroy the Church from within – sometimes even led by some
of the clergy, religious, theologians and others who hold positions of
influence in the Church or its related organisations. (Consider the recent
events regarding the Leadership Conference of Women Religious in the USA.)
The perverse
desire, by so many people in the Church, to selfishly change the teaching of
the Church, so that it conforms to modern ideas and norms, is plain for all to
see in the variety of causes that are promoted by these people: same sex
marriage; euthanasia; cohabitation; divorce and re-marriage; contraception;
ordination of women; abortion; in vitro fertilisation.
In 1998, Blessed
Pope John Paul II deemed it necessary to issue, motu proprio - “on his own
impulse” - his apostolic letter Ad Tuendam Fidem. The letter caused
modifications to be made to the Code of Canon Law. In particular, this clause
below was added as a second point to Canon 750:
“Furthermore,
each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church
regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held;
namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of
the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to
be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.”
Whether Pope
John Paul II was intent on reintroducing the Oath of Modernism, which some have
alleged, is not really important. What is important is that the pope felt the
need to speak out “to protect the faith of the Catholic Church against errors
arising from certain members of the Christian faithful”.[3]
Sadly, despite this law, so many Catholics who hold positions of influence in
the Church, or its related organisations, still continue to express or propose
dissenting views 14 years later. As a result, Modernism continues to wreak
havoc on the Church and it does so quite frequently right from within the
Church.
What is of grave
concern is how often the faithful are exposed to these dissenters by their own
pastors, be it unwittingly in most instances. One clear example of how this
happens is through the sale of Catholic newspapers via parishes. These
newspapers are in many instances given privileged access to the faithful, by
the relevant bishop and priest, because they are 'Catholic' newspapers. So they
get to peddle their newspapers right there in the pews of our churches. At some
parishes the faithful are even urged to support the newspaper. As a consequence,
these 'Catholic' newspapers get to use the very place and infrastructure, which
should offer the faithful a guaranteed source of doctrinally error free
information, to deliver their content to the faithful. The sad reality is that
more often than not the content of the Catholic newspapers contradict,
challenge, question and generally create confusion amongst the faithful about
the definitive teaching of the Magisterium. All of course under the guise of
reporting news and encouraging dialogue. There is no doubt that the bishops
would never give dissidents permission to preach during Mass. Yet, sadly, it is
evident that sometimes they may just as well do so, since the faithful are
often exposed to the newspaper not only before and after Mass, but also during
Mass!
In 1977, Pope
Paul VI said, “The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of
the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the
Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is
spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.”[4]
Who today would
argue with Pope Paul VI’s observation? Confusion in the Church exists because
of the number of dissenting voices operating from within the Church. The
faithful are not receiving a clear message from their pastors. Instead their
messages are being transmitted like a short-wave radio signal, full of
interference and noise created by those 'Catholics' who abuse their access to
the faithful, which the pastors of the Church have afforded them in good faith.
Maybe it is time
to reintroduce the oath against modernism, including subjecting lay people of
associated Catholic organisations, like the editors, writers, bloggers and
journalists of Catholic newspapers, to taking the oath. For some of these
people I suspect it would be a really foreign concept to have to fully accept
and hold as true "each and everything set forth definitively by the
Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals".
-----
Oath Against Modernism
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[5] and
in the decree Lamentabili[6],
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
labour, 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.
Perhaps when the Society of St Pius X is once again in full communion with the Catholic Church people’s attitudes will begin to change.
ReplyDeleteAs David G. Bonagura, Jr wrote in his article titled “What the SSPX Reconciliation Means – and Doesn’t”:
“With the graces that follow from full communion with Rome – and without the invective that has characterized much of the Society’s rhetoric against Rome – the SSPX may become a key player in the New Evangelization, and the Church at large should welcome its contribution.”
Then perhaps at last the errors of Modernism can begin to be dealt with within the Church.
I just find it rather frightening that a pope of ours, in this case Paul VI, actually said that “the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God.” Maybe this is what Archbishop Lefebvre foresaw and perhaps this is what caused him to do what he believed to be right in terms of holy disobedience to Rome. Maybe we will all be grateful to the Archbishop for doing what he did one day.