Modernism vs. Neo-Modernism: What is the Difference?

Modernism vs. Neo-Modernism: What is the Difference?

The overarching principle of post-conciliar theology is not modernism, properly speaking. Let us get our terms straight.

Modernism is the idea that there are no eternal truths, that truth is the correspondence of the mind with one's lifestyle (adaequatio intellectus et vitae), and that, therefore, old dogmas must be abandoned and new beliefs must arise that meet 'the needs of modern man'. This is a radical denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth: the correspondence of the mind with reality (adaequatio intellectus et rei), which is the basis of the immutability of Catholic dogma.

No, the post-conciliar theological principle is neo-modernism, and the theology that is based on it is known as the nouvelle theologie.  It is the idea that old dogmas or beliefs must be retained, yet not the traditional 'formulas': dogmas must be expressed and interpreted in a new way in every age so as to meet the 'needs of modern man'.  This is still a denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth as adaequatio intellectus et rei (insofar as it is still an attempt to make the terminology that expresses the faith correspond with our modern lifestyle) and consequently of the immutability of Catholic dogma, yet it is not as radical as modernism.  It is more subtle and much more deceptive than modernism because it claims that the faith must be retained; it is only the 'formulas' of faith that must be abandoned--they use the term 'formula' to distinguish the supposedly mutable words of our creeds, dogmas, etc. from their admittedly immutable meanings.  Therefore, neo-modernism can effectively slip under the radar of most pre-conciliar condemnations (except Humani generis, which condemns it directly) insofar as its practitioners claim that their new and unintelligible theological terminology really expresses the same faith of all times.  In other words, neo-modernism is supposed to be 'dynamic orthodoxy': supposedly orthodox in meaning, yet always changing in expression to adapt to modern life (cf. Franciscan University of Steubenville's mission statement).  

Take extra ecclesiam nulla salus as a clear example of a dogma that has received a brutal neo-modernist re-interpretation: they claim that the old 'formula' that "there is no salvation outside the Church" must be abandoned; rather it is more meaningful to modern man to say that salvation is not in, but through, the Church;  people who are not in the Church may still be saved through the Church; thus, to them the dogma that "there is no salvation outside the Church" means that there is salvation outside the Church.  Hence see Ven. Pope Pius XII condemning those "reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation." (Humani generis 27).

Yet this mentality of reinterpreting everything anew in order to 'meet the needs of the times' is generally tends to be found in different degrees among different post-conciliar sources:  

It tends to be  (1) rampant in men like De Lubac, Von Balthasar, Congar, etc.: it is the ultimate goal of their writings, teachings, and activities as churchmen.   To achieve this end, they employ the technique of 'resourcement', the neo-modernist strategy of fishing for the few dubious, questionable, or idiosyncratic teachings of some Fathers of the Church and other authoritative writers, and gather them into a massive, heterodox theological argument against the traditional understanding of the faith (which they like to relativize by giving it names such as "Counter-Reformation" Theology, "Tridentine" Theology, or "Scholastic" Theology, instead of just admitting that it is Catholic Theology plain and simple).  This technique accomplishes three things that go hand-in-hand: (a) offers a refutation of traditional Catholicism, (b) defends an interpretation that meets the needs of modern times, and (c) gives it a semblance of being traditional, because it appears to be based in the Fathers et al.  This type of argument is used, for example, by Von Balthasar in his nearly heretical book, Dare We Hope that All Men be Saved? to 'prove', not that Hell does not exist (that is a dogma), but that it is empty.  But this technique and its neo-modernistic underpinnings is not only practiced in almost all of these men's writings; it is also defended in theory by many of them, particularly in Von Balthasar's daring little book, Razing the Bastions, where he demonstrates that "Tridentine" theology must be rejected in our times because it is 'boring'.

It also tends to be (2) present in a more moderate way in the non-binding statements by post-conciliar popes, since they themselves were deeply involved in the developing of the nouvelle theologie.  Just to give one of a million possible examples, see Pope Benedict's evolutionistic re-interpretation of the Resurrection of Our Lord.  Nothing here obviously contradicts  the dogma of the Resurrection (it may be interpreted as a simple analogy, even if a bad one, and nothing more), but it is a novelty that can be easily understood as claiming that the Resurrection is part of the natural development of nature (thus giving credence to some of the nouvelle theologie's pet doctrines, such as De Lubac's heterodox notion of the supernatural and De Chardin's pantheistic evolutionism).   This happens almost on a daily basis in what comes out of the Vatican, not to mention what comes from local bishops.

And finally, neo-modernism tends to be present (3) mostly implicitly or behind-the-scenes in the Council, the Catechism, etc., even though it seldom comes out more explicitly.  Things are done at this level under the pretext of 'aggiornamento', a euphemism for neo-modernism.  That is usually all the justification provided since at this authoritative level, there is no need to justify things theologically.  Hence, Vatican II and the Catechism are not outright neo-modernistic.  Rather, they (like most of post-conciliar doctrine) tend in that direction and/or are inspired by that mentality.  In other words, most of the time these documents do not explicitly teach neo-modernist errors (the kind of errors you hear explicitly from neo-modernist theologians and priests). Rather, they are full of dangerous ambiguities: statements that in a technical sense could be interpreted as being in harmony with the traditional faith, but that, in their natural, non-forced, interpretation are heterodox.  One clear example of this is Dignitatis humanae, par. 2; entire monographs have been written in order to prove that, despite appearances, this document does not contradict previous teaching.  Maybe in fact it ultimately does not, but it is obvious that the prima facie meaning does; otherwise there would be no need to write so many volumes to prove it.

It must be noted that these are general tendencies, and that in some documents (cf. Gaudium et Spes) and every now and then in papal and episcopal statements neo-modernist principles rears come out more explicitly.    

For a more detailed philosophical and theological critique of neo-modernism, and how it is nothing but a re-hashing of modernism, see Garrigou-Lagrange's Where is the New Theology Leading Us? and his The Structure of the Encyclical Humani Generis.

'Vital Immanence': Modernism and its Phenomenological Explanation of Religion

'Vital Immanence': Modernism and its Phenomenological Explanation of Religion

On the 103th Anniversary of Pope St Pius X's encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis, On Modernism.

Vital Immanence

7. However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernist: the positive side of it consists in what they call vital immanence. This is how they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation. But when Natural theology has been destroyed, the road to revelation closed through the rejection of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside man himself. It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. Hence the principle of religious immanence is formulated. Moreover, the first actuation, so to say, of every vital phenomenon, and religion, as has been said, belongs to this category, is due to a certain necessity or impulsion; but it has its origin, speaking more particularly of life, in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sentiment. Therefore, since God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and the foundation of all religion, consists in a sentiment which originates from a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favourable circumstances, cannot, of itself, appertain to the domain of consciousness; it is at first latent within the consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its roots lies hidden and undetected.

Should anyone ask how it is that this need of the divine which man experiences within himself grows up into a religion, the Modernists reply thus: Science and history, they say, are confined within two limits, the one external, namely, the visible world, the other internal, which is consciousness. When one or other of these boundaries has been reached, there can be no further progress, for beyond is the unknowable. In presence of this unknowable, whether it is outside man and beyond the visible world of nature, or lies hidden within in the subconsciousness, the need of the divine, according to the principles of Fideism, excites in a soul with a propensity towards religion a certain special sentiment, without any previous advertence of the mind: and this sentiment possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the reality of the divine, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sentiment to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this it is which they consider the beginning of religion.

8. But we have not yet come to the end of their philosophy, or, to speak more accurately, their folly. For Modernism finds in this sentiment not faith only, but with and in faith, as they understand it, revelation, they say, abides. For what more can one require for revelation? Is not that religious sentiment which is perceptible in the consciousness revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is not God Himself, as He manifests Himself to the soul, indistinctly it is true, in this same religious sense, revelation? And they add: Since God is both the object and the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and from God; that is, God is both the revealer and the revealed.

Hence, Venerable Brethren, springs that ridiculous proposition of the Modernists, that every religion, according to the different aspect under which it is viewed, must be considered as both natural and supernatural. Hence it is that they make consciousness and revelation synonymous. Hence the law, according to which religious consciousness is given as the universal rule, to be put on an equal footing with revelation, and to which all must submit, even the supreme authority of the Church, whether in its teaching capacity, or in that of legislator in the province of sacred liturgy or discipline.

Garrigou-Lagrange on Evolution (aka 'Transformism')

Garrigou-Lagrange on Evolution (aka 'Transformism')

From Garrigou-Lagrange's The Trinity and God the creator, Ch.37.

Transformism and the Origin of Life

State of the question. The question of the origin of life and of the different species of living things is one of the most important of those that pertain to the creation of corporeal things. The modern theory of transformism was scarcely mentioned among the ancient philosophers, although St. Thomas sometimes spoke of the hypothesis of the appearance of new species.[1261] This problem is in some way connected with the old question of universals: whether the universals are fundamentally in individual beings according to their unchangeable nature.

Transformism may be either absolute or moderate.

Absolute transformism holds that matter is uncaused, that it exists of itself from eternity, and that from it by successive transformations have issued different living beings, that is, vegetative, sensitive, and intellectual life. (Huxley and Darwin.)

Moderate transformism holds that matter is not uncaused but is created by God, that it is not eternal, that the first living beings were created by God, and that God intervened in a special way to produce sensitive life, in the formation of the human body and in the creation of the spiritual soul. This moderate transformism refers to the production of various species of plants and animals which derive by successive transformations from the first living beings. Some of those who hold a moderate transformism think that all plants and animals come from different species created by God; others think that all plants came from one species and all animals came from one species of animal. Those who support the theory of transformism are not agreed on the definition of species; what one calls species another may call a variation.

Absolute transformism. This theory manifestly contradicts faith and reason inasmuch as it denies all intervention by God. It is directly opposed to the dogma of creation ("In the beginning God created heaven and earth"), since it teaches that matter has no cause and is eternal. This theory is opposed to all the proofs for the existence of God, and it implies that more is produced by less, the more perfect by the imperfect. This is at the same time against the principle of contradiction or identity, against the principle of the reason of being, the principle of efficient causality, and the principle of finality. It implies an ascending evolution, in which something more perfect appears without any reason, without any efficient cause, without an end, and without order. This theory destroys all intelligibility of things, as we have explained at length on another occasion.[1262] Such an evolution of species would be entirely fortuitous, without any preconceived idea or finality, and no reason is supplied for the wonderful subordination and coordination of things in nature.

In even the most ancient species, as we know from fossils, the organs are adapted to an end, coordinated with one another, and subordinated to the preservation of the individual and the species. All this cannot be attributed to chance; it presupposes an intelligent cause. Chance is a cause , a cause that is accidentally connected with a cause , and therefore an accidental cause cannot be the first cause of the order in things, for then order would come from the privation of order, and intelligibility would come from unintelligibility. What would be more absurd than to say that the intellects of the great doctors and the charity of the saints derived from a blind and material fate? The greater cannot be produced by the lesser. Hence absolute transformism substitutes the most patent absurdity for the mystery of creation.

This refutation of absolute transformism is confirmed by experience, which shows that every living thing comes from another living being and that there is no spontaneous generation. Pasteur and Tyndall demonstrated that no living beings are generated where all ova and seed have been destroyed. Such bacteria as are said to be generated in the atmosphere do not come from inanimate matter but from ova existing in the atmosphere. Huxley himself admitted Pasteur's conclusions.

St. Thomas held that certain animal life was generated by putrefaction under the influence of the sun. His explanation was as follows: "A heavenly body, since it is a moving thing that is moved, has the nature of an instrument which acts with the power of the principal agent; and therefore it can cause life by virtue of its mover, which is a living substance."[1263] St. Thomas never admitted that the more perfect being can be produced by the less perfect.

Moderate transformism. This theory does not oppose the teaching of faith. The words of Genesis ("And God said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind") show that there was some difference among the species that God created, but they do not assert that all species were immediately created by God. St. Thomas himself said: "If certain new species should appear, these have existed previously in certain active forces; in this way what is generated by animal putrefaction is produced by the power of the stars and the elements," that is, "by the power of the mover (of the stars), which is a living substance."[1264] Thus St. Thomas maintains inviolate the principle of causality, according to which the more perfect cannot be produced by a less perfect being as a fully sufficient cause.

Lastly, it is difficult to say where true variation begins and where species leaves off in the ontological sense. Generally interfecundation is held to be the sign of membership in the same species. If it is pointed out that the horse and the ass generate the mule, it should be remembered that the mule is sterile, that is, it does not propagate a species. Here we have confirmation of the principle that operation follows being, and the mode of operation follows the mode of being; from this it follows that every animal generates offspring similar to itself in species. Ontological species therefore are immutable. But it is difficult to say when two animals belong to the same species properly so called or to two similar species. We do not have a clear enough understanding of the specific difference between living sensible beings; their specific forms are deeply immersed in matter and hardly intelligible to us. We know them only in a descriptive manner, empirically.[1265]

But when we come to man, we clearly understand his specific difference because it is not immersed in matter. Man's reason or rationality is a form of intellectuality, and intelligence is distinctly intelligible to itself because it is essentially ordered to the cognition of intelligible being itself and the reasons for the being of things.

It is clear, then, that the human soul cannot be educed from the potency of matter; on the other hand the specific form of plants and animals is educed from matter by way of generation.[1266]

--------------------------------

Notes:

1261 Summa Theol., Ia, q. 73, a. 1 ad 3; q. 115, a. 2. "Whether there are any seminal reasons in corporeal matter."

1262 Garrigou-Lagrange, De revelatione I, 233-76.

1263 Summa Theol., Ia, q. 70, a. 3 ad 3.

1264 Ibid., q. 73, a. 1 ad 3; q. 115, a. 2

1265 cf. Dict. apol., art. "Transformism."

1266 Summa Theol., Ia, q. 118, a. 1, 2.

Garrigou's De Deo Trino et Creatore as well as many others of his works 

are available on PDF format through ITOPL!

In Festo S. Pii X (Sept. 3), Acta

In Festo S. Pii X (Sept. 3), Acta

From Matins of the Feast of St. Pius X, Pope, Confessor, and Hammer of Modernists
Online Source: www.breviary.net

Second Nocturn
Absolutio: Ipsíus píetas et misericórdia nos ádjuvet, qui cum Patre et Spíritu Sancto vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum.R.  Amen.	Absolution:  May his loving-kindness and mercy assist us.  Who, with the Father, and the Holy Ghost, liveth and reigneth, for ever and ever. R.  Amen.
V.  Jube domne, (Dómine) benedícere.	V.  Vouchsafe, Reverend Father (O Lord), thy blessing.
Benedíctio 4: Deus Pater omnípotens sit nobis propítius et clemens. R.  Amen.	Benediction 4:  May God the Father Almighty shew us his mercy and pity. R.  Amen.
Lesson iv
The house in Riese where Joseph Sarto was born
Pius Papa décimus, cui nomen ántea Joséphus Sarto, in Venetórum pago natus est, quem Riése vocant, paréntibus quidem humílibus, sed probitáte ac pietáte conspícuus.  Inter Seminárii Patavíni alúmnos adscríptus, ita pietáte ac doctrína profécit, ut condiscípulis exémplo, moderatóribus admiratióni esset.  Sacerdótio initiátus, in óppido Tómbolo primum, qua vicárius cooperátor, dein Salatiáni qua párochus, per plures annos adlaborávit ; quibus in obeúndis munéribus, tanta caritátis effusióne, tanto sacerdotáli zelo et sanctitáte vitæ excélluit, ut Epíscopus Tarvisínus inter canónicos cathedrális ecclésiæ eum cooptáret, eúmque Cúriæ episcopális cancellárium simúlque Seminárii diœcesáni spirituálem moderatórem renuntiáret.  Hæc offícia tam egrégie persecútus, a Leóne tértio décimo, cui erat probatíssimus, Mantuánæ ecclésiæ Antístes fuit renuntiátus.	Pope Pius X, whose name previously was Joseph Sarto, was born in the village of Riese in the Venetian province, to humble parents remarkable for their godliness and piety.  He enrolled among the students in the seminary of Padua, where he exhibited such piety and learning that he was both an example to his fellow students and the admiration of his teachers.  Upon his ordination to the priesthood, he laboured for several years first as curate in the town of Tombolo, then as pastor at Salzano.  He applied himself to his duties with such a constant flow of charity and  such priestly zeal, and was so distinguished by the holiness of his life, that the Bishop of Treviso appointed him as a canon of the cathedral church and and made him the chancellor of the bishop's curia, as well as spiritual director of the diocesan seminary.  His performance in these duties was so outstanding and so highly impressed Leo XIII, that he made him bishop of the Church of Mantua.
V.  Tu autem, Dómine, miserére nobis. R.  Deo grátias.	V.  But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. R.  Thanks be to God.
The young Giuseppe Sarto
R.  Invéni David servum meum, óleo sancto meo unxi eum : * Manus enim mea auxiliábitur ei. V.  Nihil profíciet inimícus in eo, et fílius iniquitátis non nocébit ei. R.  Manus enim mea auxiliábitur ei.	R.  I have found David my servant, with my holy oil have I anointed him. * My hand shall hold him fast. V.  The enemy shall not be able to do him violence ; the son of wickedness shall not hurt him. R.  My hand shall hold him fast.
The Seminary at Padua
V.  Jube domne, (Dómine) benedícere.	V.  Vouchsafe, Reverend Father (O Lord), thy blessing.
Benedíctio 5: Christus perpétuæ det nobis gáudia vitæ.R.  Amen.	Benediction 5: May Christ bestow upon us the joys of life eternal. R.  Amen.
Lesson v
On the death of Pope Leo XIII, the Patriarch of Venice, Cardinal Sarto departs for the Conclave at Rome at which he will be elected Pope
Boni pastóris nullam partem déserens, eo máxime conténdit, ut juvéntus in sortem Dómini vocáta rite ad sacra instituerétur, piæ consociatiónes novis augéscerent increméntis, rítibus divíni cultus plus decóris ac pietátis accéderet.  Præcépta quibus cívitas christiána nítitur, áltius proclamáre non désiit, et qui vitam ínopem ipse ducébat, paupéribus numquam omísit afférre levámen.  Tot ígitur suffragántibus méritis, inter purpurátos Patres adléctus et Venetiárum Patriárcha creátus est.  Dénique post Leónis décimi tértii óbitum, cum Patrum Cardinálium suffrágia in eum coaléscerent, cumque ipse supplicatiónibus et lácrimis tantum munus a se avértere frustra conátus esset, suasiónibus tandem cedens, « accépto in crucem », inquit, et Summi Pontificátus ápicem ut crucem a Deo sibi oblátam, demísso sed forti ánimo suscépit.	Lacking in nothing that maketh a good pastor, he laboured particularly to teach young men called to the priesthood, as well as fostering  the growth of devout associations and the beauty and dignity of divine worship.  He would ever affirm and promote the laws upon which Christian civilisation depend, and while leading himself a life of poverty, never missed the opportunity to alleviate the burden of poverty in others. Because of his great merits, he was made a cardinal and created Patriarch of Venice.  After the death of Pope Leo XIII, when the votes of the College of Cardinals began to increase in his favour, he tried in vain with supplications and tears to be relieved of so heavy a burden. Finally he ceded to their persuasions, saying I accept the cross.  Thus he accepted the crown of the supreme pontificate as a cross, offering himself to God, with a resigned but stedfast spirit.
V.  Tu autem, Dómine, miserére nobis. R.  Deo grátias.	V.  But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. R.  Thanks be to God.
R.  Pósui adjutórium super poténtem, et exaltávi eléctum de plebe mea : * Manus enim mea auxiliábitur ei. V.  Invéni David servum meum, óleo sancto meo unxi eum. R.  Manus enim mea auxiliábitur ei.	R.  I have laid help upon one that is mighty, I have exalted one chosen out of the people. *My hand shall hold him fast.V.  I have found David, my servant, with my holy oil have I anointed him. R.  My hand shall hold him fast.
V.  Jube domne, (Dómine) benedícere.	V.  Vouchsafe, Reverend Father (O Lord), thy blessing.
Benedíctio 6: Ignem sui amóris accéndat Deus in córdibus nostris. R.  Amen.	Benediction 6: May God enkindle in our hearts the fire of his holy love. R.  Amen.
Lesson vi
In Petri cáthedra constitútus, nihil de prístina vitæ ratióne remísit.  Humilitáte præsértim, simplicitáte ac paupertáte refúlsit, ita ut in suo testaménto scríbere potúerit : « Pauper natus sum, pauper vixi, pauper mori cúpio ».  Humílitas vero ánimi fortitúdinem in eo alébat, cum de Dei glória, Ecclésiæ libertáte, animarúmque salúte agerétur.  Vir acérrimi  ingénii et propósiti tenax, inter vicésimi ineúntis sæculi procéllas, Ecclésiam fírmiter rexit, et præclaríssimis ornávit institútis.  Músicam sacram ad prístinum splendórem ac dignitátem revocávit ; sacrórum Bibliórum stúdiis príncipem sedem Romæ constítuit ; Románam Cúriam sapiénter reformávit ; leges de fidélibus per catechísmum instituéndis restítuit ; Eucharísticæ mensæ crebriórem, imo et cotidiánam consuetúdinem indúxit, ejúsque accéssum púeris quoque a primo ratiónis usu apéruit ; actiónis cathólicæ increménta sédulo promóvit ; sólidæ cleri institutióni provídit, ádditis quoque semináriis per regiónes dispósitis ; sacerdótes omnes ad interiórem vitam coléndam alléxit ; leges Ecclésiæ in unum corpus redégit ; erróres perniciosíssimos, modernísmi appellatióne comprehénsos, damnávit atque evéllit ; civíle vétitum, quod dicunt, in Pontíficis Máximi electióne rejécit.  Tandem labóribus fractus ac mæróre conféctus ob bellum Europæum tunc exórtum, die vicésima mensis Augústi anni millésimi nongentésimi décimi quarti, ad cæléste præmium evolávit.  Eum ubíque terrárum sanctitátis fama clarum miraculísque fulgéntem, Pius Papa duodécimus, cuncto plaudénte orbe, in Sanctórum númerum rétulit.	Placed upon the chair of Peter, he gave up nothing of his former way of life.  He shone especially in humility, simplicity and poverty, so that he was able to write in his last testament : I was born in poverty, I lived in poverty, and I wish to die in poverty.  His humility, however, nourished his soul with strength, when it concerned the glory of God, the liberty of Holy Church, and the salvation of souls.  A man of passionate temperament and of firm purpose, he ruled the Church firmly as it entered into the twentieth century, and adorned it with brilliant teachings.  He restored the sacred musick to its pristine glory and dignity ; he established Rome as the principal centre for the study of the Holy Bible ; he ordered the reform of the Roman Curia with great wisdom ; he restored the laws concerning the faithful for the instruction of the catechism ; he introduced the custom of more frequent and even daily reception of the Holy Eucharist, as well as permitting its reception by children as soon as they reach the age of reason ; he zealously promoted the growth of Catholic action ; he provided for the sound education of clericks and increased the number of seminaries in their divers regions ; he encouraged every priest in the practice of the interior life ;  he brought the laws of the Church together into one body ; he condemned and suppressed those most pernicious errors known collectively as Modernism ; he suppressed the custom of civil veto at the election of a Supreme Pontiff.  Finally worn out with his labours and overcome with grief at the European war which had just begun, he went to his heavenly reward on the twentieth day of August in the year 1914.  Renowned throughout all the world for the fame of his holiness and miracles, Pope Pius XII, with the approbation of the whole world,  numbered him among the Saints.
V.  Tu autem, Dómine, miserére nobis. R.  Deo grátias.	V.  But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us. R.  Thanks be to God.
The Canonization of St. Pius X
R.  Iste est, qui ante Deum magnas virtútes operátus est, et omnis terra doctrína ejus repléta est : * Ipse intercédat pro peccátis ómnium populórum.V.  Iste est, qui contémpsit vitam mundi, et pervénit ad cæléstia regna. R.  Ipse intercédat pro peccátis ómnium populórum.V.  Glória Patri, et Fílio, et Spirítui Sancto. R.  Ipse intercédat pro peccátis ómnium populórum.	R.  This is he who wrought mighty deeds and valiant in the sight of God, and all the earth is filled with his doctrine: * May his intercession avail for the sins of all the people.V.  He was a man who despised the life of the world and attained unto the kingdom of heaven. R.  May his intercession avail for the sins of all the people.V.  Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. R.  May his intercession avail for the sins of all the people.

The Oath Against Modernism Betrayed.

The Oath Against Modernism Betrayed.

Link to Catholic Family News article.

Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the Oath Against Modernism

Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of the Oath Against Modernism

THE OATH AGAINST THE ERRORS OF MODERNISM

From the Motu Proprio of Pope St. Pius X

"Sacrorum Antistitum" (1 September 1910)

Ego _________ firmiter amplector ac recipio omnia et singula, quae ab inerranti Ecclesia magisterio definita, adserta ac declarata sunt, praesertim ea doctrinae capita, quae huius temporis erroribus directo adversantur.

I, N .... firmly accept and embrace each and every doctrine defined by the Church's unerring teaching authority and ail that She has maintained and declared, especially those points of doctrine which directly oppose the errors of our time.

Ac primum quidem: Deum, rerum omnium principium et finem, naturali rationis lumine "per ea quae facta sunt" hoc est, per visibilia creationis opera, tamquam causam per effectus, certo cognosci, adeoque demonstrari etiam posse, profiteor. 

In the first place, I profess that God, the Beginning and the End of all things, can be known with certitude and His existence demonstrated by the natural light of reason from the things that are made, that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause is known from its effects.

Secundo: externa revelationis argumenta, hoc est facta divina, in primisque miracula et prophetias admitto et agnosco tanquam signa certissima divinitus ortae christianae religionis, eademque tenea aetatum omnium atque hominum, etiam huius temporis, intelliegentiae esse maxime accommodata.

Secondly, I acknowledge and admit the external arguments for revelation, namely, divine facts, especially miracles and prophecies, as most certain signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion, and I hold these are perfectly suited to the intelligence of every age and of all men, including our own times.

Tertio: firma pariter fide credo Ecclesiam, verbi revelati custodem et magistram, per ipsum verum atque historicum Christum, cum apud nos degeret, proximo ac directo institutam eandemque super Petrum, apostolicae hierarchiae principem, eiusque in aevum successores aedificatam.

Thirdly, I also firmly believe that the Church, the guardian and teacher of God's revealed word, was directly and absolutely instituted by Christ Himself, the true Christ of History, while He lived among us; and that the same Church was founded on Peter; the prince of the apostolic hierarchy and on his successors to the end of time.

Quarto: fidei doctrinam ab Apostolis per orthodoxos Patres eodem sensu eademque semper sententia ad nos usque transmissam, sincero recipio; ideoque prorsus reicio haereticum commentum evolutionis dogmatum, ab uno in alium sensum transeuntium, diversum ab eo, quem prius habuit Ecclesia; pariterque damno errorem omnem, quo, divino deposito, Christi Sponsae tradito ab eaque fideliter custodiendo, sufficitur philosophicum inventum, vel creatio humanae conscientiae, hominum conatu sensim efformatae et in posterum indefinito progressu perficiendae.

Fourthly, I sincerely accept the doctrine of faith in the same sense and with always the same meaning as it has been handed down to us from the apostles through the officially approved fathers. And therefore, I wholly reject the heretical notion of the evolution of dogmas, according to which doctrines pass from one sense to another sense alien to that which the Church held from the start. I likewise condemn every erroneous notion to the effect that instead of the divine deposit of faith entrusted by Christ to His spouse, the Church, and to be faithfully guarded by Her, one may substitute a philosophic system or a creation of the human mind gradually refined by man's striving and capable of eventual perfection by indefinite progress.

Quinto: certissime teneo ac sincere profiteor, fidem non esse caecum sensum religionis e latrebis subconscientiae erumpentem, sub pressione cordis et inflesione voluntatis maraliter informatae, sed verum assensum intellectus veritati extrinsecus acceptae "ex auditu", quo nempe, quae a Deo personali, creatore ac Domino nostro dicta, testata et revelata sunt, vera esse credimus, propter Dei auctoritatem summe veracis.

Fifthly, I hold as certain and sincerely profess that faith is not a blind religious sense evolving from the hidden recesses of subliminal consciousness, and morally formed by the influence of heart and will, but that it is a real assent of the intellect to objective truth learned by hearing, an assent wherein we believe to be true whatever has been spoken, testified, and revealed by the personal God, our Creator and Lord, on the authority of God, Who is the Perfection of Truth.

Me etiam, qua par est, reverentia subicio totoque animo adhaereo damnationibus, declarationibus, praescriptis omnibus, quae in Encyclicis litteris "Pascendi" et in Decreto "Lamentabili" continentur, praesertim circa eam quam historiam dogmatum vocant. Idem reprobo errorem affirmantium, propositam ab Ecclesia fidem posse historiae repugnare, et catholica dogmata, quo sensu nunc intelliguntur, cum verioribus christianae religionis originibus componi non posse.

Furthermore, in all due reverence, I submit to and fully uphold all the condemnations, declarations and directions contained in the encyclical letter PASCENDI and in the LAMENTABILI, especially as regards what is called the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who allege that the faith proposed by the Church may conflict with history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, cannot be reconciled with actual origins of Christianity.

Damno quoque ac reicio eorum sententiam, qui dicunt christianum hominem eruditiorem induere personam duplicem, aliam credentis, aliam historici, quasi liceret historico ea retinere, quae credentis fidei contradicant, aut praemissas adstruere, ex quibus consequatur, dogmata esse aut falsa aut dubia, modo haec directo non denegentur.

I condemn and reject, moreover, the opinion put forth that a more learned Christian can assume a dual personality, one as believer and another as historian, thus making it permissible for the historian to maintain what his faith as a believer contradicts, or to lay down premises from which there follows the falsity or the uncertainty of dogmas, provided only that these are not directly denied.

Reprobo pariter eam Scripturae sanctae diiudicandae atque interpretandae rationem, quae, Ecclesiae traditione, analogia fidei et Apostolicae Sedis normis posthabitis, rationalistarum comentis inhaeret, et criticem textus velut unicam supremamque regulam haud minus licenter quam temere amplectitur.

I likewise reject that method of determining and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, setting aside the Church's tradition and the analogy of faith and the norms of the Holy See, adopts the principles of the rationalists, and with equal arbitrariness regards textual criticism as a sole supreme rule.

Sententiam praeterea illorum reicio, qui tenent, doctori disciplinae historicae theologicae tradendae aut iis de rebus scribenti seponendam prius esse opinionem ante conceptam sive de supernaturali origine catholicae traditionis, sive de promissa divinitus ope ad perennem conservationem uniuscuiusque revelati veri; deinde scripta Patrum singulorum interpretanda solic scientiae principiis, sacra qualibet auctoritate seclusa, eaque iudicii libertate, qua profana quaevis monumenta solent investigari.

Moreover, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a teacher of the science of historical theology or a writer on the subject must first put aside any preconceived notions about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine aid promised for the continual preservation of each revealed truth; or that the writings of individual fathers must be interpreted solely by the data of science without any reference to sacred authority, and with the same freedom of judgment usually accorded to any profane records.

In universum denique me alienissimum ab errore profiteor, quo modernistae tenent in sacra traditione nihil inesse divini, aut, quod longe deterius, pantheistico sensu illud admittunt, ita ut nihil iam restet nisi nudum factum et simplex, communibus historiae factis aequandum: hominum nempe sua industria, solertia, ingenio scholam a Christo eiusque Apostolis inchoatam per subsequentes aetates continuantium.

Finally, I profess that I am far removed in general from the error of the modernists, who hold that there is nothing inherently divine in sacred tradition; or who - which is far worse - admit it in a pantheistic sense. For them, there would remain only a bare simple fact, like the ordinary facts of history, to the effect that the system started by Christ and His Apostles still find men to support it by their energy, shrewdness, and ability.

Proinde fidem patrum firmissime retineo et ad extremum vitae spiritum retinebo, de charismate veritatis certo, quad est, fuit eritque semper in episcopatus ab apostolis successione, non ut id teneatur, quod melius et aptius videri possit secundum suam cuiusque aetatis culturam, sed ut numquam aliter credatur, numquam aliter intellegatur absoluta et immutabilis veritas ab initio per apostolos praedicata.

Therefore, I most firmly retain and will retain to my last breath the faith of the Fathers of the Church, which has the supernatural guarantee of truth, and which is, has been, and ever will be residing in the bishops who are the successors of the apostles. And this is not to be understood that we may hold what seems better suited to the culture of a particular age, but rather that we may never believe nor understand anything other than the absolute and unchangeable truth preached from the beginning by the Apostles.

Haec omnia spondeo me fideliter, integre sincereque servaturum et inviolabiliter custoditurum, nusquam ab iis sive in docendo sive quomodolibet verbis scriptisque deflectendo. Sic spondeo, sic iuro, sic me Deus adiuvet et haec sancta Dei Evangelia.

All this I promise to keep faithfully, entirely and sincerely, and to guard inviolably, and never to depart from it in any way, in teaching, word or writing. So I promise, so I swear, so help me God and His Holy Gospels.

Professors, are you really Catholic?

Take the oath!