Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Oath against Modernism - Church dogma denied by many heretics on left and right.  (Read 566 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline XavierSem

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1252
  • Reputation: +75/-121
  • Gender: Male
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
The below is the dogmatic Oath of His Holiness Pope St. Pius X against Modernism: to be Catholic, it is necessary to accept all of it. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm

Rev. Father Davide Pagliarani recently took this Oath when being elected Superior General. Archbishop Lefebvre used to ask mainstream modern churchmen, "do you still agree with the entire Oath against Modernism." It would be good for all of us to swear it.

Whereas the totally heretical Dimonds have written on their website, "one should not be surprised by the fact that there are barely any authentically Catholic priests in the world today and no fully Catholic jurisdictional (i.e., governing) bishops to speak of." - not realizing that they become heretics who deny the Apostolicity of the Church, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Oath against Modernism in adopting such a heresy.

The Oath Against Modernism

His Holiness Pope St. Pius X - 1910

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM

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. . .

Do make Acts of Consecration to the Twin Hearts, Spiritual Offerings of the Precious Blood of Jesus in Union with the Holy Mass, like in St. Gertrude's Chaplet, along with Spiritual Communions at least every hour. The Saints say Spiritual Communions are a way to quickly advance to Union with God.

Offline forlorn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1110
  • Reputation: +450/-665
  • Gender: Male
Archbishop Lefebvre was excommunicated and was therefore, according to your own beliefs on the validity of the Conciliar hierarchy, not in Communion with the Holy Catholic Church. Why then, do you quote him? 


Offline XavierSem

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1252
  • Reputation: +75/-121
  • Gender: Male
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
There are many instances of Church authorities sometimes going against a Saint, then later realizing it and canonizing him; e.g. St. Athanasius, St. Joan of Arc, St. Padre Pio etc. We believe the same will happen to saintly Archbishop Lefebvre one day, though again that is not the subject of this thread - I wonder why sedes are afraid to come out and say at least, yes, the Dimonds defend objective heresy, when they say the Church needs no governing hierarchy. And they also misrepresent the historical facts and become heretical.

Anyway, as some of Rome's own Canon Lawyers explained, consecrating an auxiliary bishop, because it does not usurp the Pope's primacy of jurisdiction, does not constitute schism; only if a Bishop attempts to confer habitual jurisdiction on another Bishop - and Archbishop Lefebvre was crystal clear H.G. did not intend this and explicitly disclaimed it - is there an issue. Cardinal Oddi said "Merci, Monsignor" (Thank you, Monsignor) over Archbishop Lefebvre's tomb, and +ABL passed into eternity on March 25th, a signal grace of sanctity because it is such a holy day. St. Padre Pio himself venerated Archbishop Lefebvre.

"The Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Institute of Paris, Fr. Patrick Valdrini, confirmed that “it is not the consecration of a bishop that creates a schism; what consummates the schism is to confer upon that bishop an apostolic mission” (Valeurs Actuelles, July 4, 1988 ).

Finally, on January 21, 2009, a decree of the Congregation for Bishops, signed by its Prefect, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, based on the faculties expressly granted by Pope Benedict XVI, declared the decree of July 1, 1988, to be deprived of any juridical effect." https://fsspx.org/en/sspx%E2%80%99s-bishops


So all that is in the past now anyway. Now, back to the Dimonds. Do you agree with them, or do you agree that they are objectively heretical?
Do make Acts of Consecration to the Twin Hearts, Spiritual Offerings of the Precious Blood of Jesus in Union with the Holy Mass, like in St. Gertrude's Chaplet, along with Spiritual Communions at least every hour. The Saints say Spiritual Communions are a way to quickly advance to Union with God.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
  • Reputation: +54/-5
  • Gender: Male
Xavier,

You never responded to this post of mine:  https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-vicar-of-christ-can-never-in-actual-fact-become-a-pertinacious-heretic/msg646956/#msg646956


The gates of hell will not be prevail, i.e., they shall not be victorious over the Christ and His Church. But, as Cardinal Manning says, "for a time, the powers of evil [will] prevail."
He who restrains, who holds  - the pope, the protector of tradition and the faith held by the saints - will hold, "until he is gotten out of the way." 2 Thessalonians 2:7.

As I said before, the general rule of a true pope and successor to Peter holds except for the divinely willed "exception." The Jews could have cited their otherwise true readings of Scriptures against Christ, because they failed to see how Christ was a fulfillment of those very Scriptures (and how can a man claim to be God?).

You cite the truths about true popes and the general rule that holds for most of the Church's time against the Sedes and this time because you don't see how an anti-pope and these seemingly contradictory conditions are fulfilling prophecy and the will of God.

As I said before, the apostles were the messengers of our Lord - except one, the predestined son of perdition. 


Quote
Now we have an analogy to this. The history of the Church, and the history of our Lord on earth, run as it were in parallel. For three-and-thirty years the Son of God incarnate was in the world, and no man could lay hand upon Him. No man could take Him, because His “hour was not yet come.” There was an hour foreordained when the Son of God would be delivered into the hands of sinners. He foreknew it; He foretold it. He held it in His own hand, for He surrounded His person with a circle of His own Divine power. No man could break through that circle of omnipotence until the hour came, when by His own will He opened the way for the powers of evil. For this reason He said in the garden, “This is your hour, and the power of darkness.” [60] For this reason, before He gave Himself into the hands of sinners, He exerted once more the majesty of His power, and when they came to take Him, He rose and said, “I am He,” [61] and “they went backward, and fell to the ground.” Having vindicated His divine majesty, He delivered Himself into the hands of sinners. So too, He said, when He stood before Pilate, “Thou shouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee from above.” [62] It was the will of God; it was the concession of the Father that Pilate had power over His incarnate Son. Again, He said, “Thinkest thou that I cannot ask My Father, and He will give Me presently more than twelve legions of angels? how then shall the Scripture be fulfilled?” [63] In like manner with His Church. Until the hour is come when the barrier shall, by the Divine will, be taken out of the way, no one has power to lay a hand upon it. The gates of hell may war against it; they may strive and wrestle, as they struggle now, with the Vicar of our Lord; but no one has the power to move Him one step, until the hour shall come when the Son of God shall permit, for a time, the powers of evil to prevail. That He will permit it for a time stands in the book of prophecy. When the hindrance is taken away, the man of sin will be revealed; then will come the persecution of three years and a half, short, but terrible, during which the Church of God will return into its state of suffering, as in the beginning; and the imperishable Church of God, by its inextinguishable life derived from the pierced side of Jesus, which for three hundred years lived on through blood, will live on still through the fires of the times of Antichrist.

Manning, Archbishop Henry. The Present Crisis of the Holy See . Desert Will Flower iPress. Kindle Edition.

I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

Offline XavierSem

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1252
  • Reputation: +75/-121
  • Gender: Male
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
Hi DecemRationis, is it your view that a Pope himself will be AntiChrist? I think that is impossible.

What is possible, since the Pope is Christ's Vicar, is that Anti-Christ is an Anti-Pope truly and properly so-called. I think it possible and even probable. Simon Magus was considered by many as a prefigurement of Anti-Christ, and he set up something like an anti-church in Rome, opposing Sts. Peter and Paul, like every anti-pope opposes the True Pope. Judas, the son of perdition, was also considered as a prefigurement of anti-Christ, an apostate bishop. I think it is quite possible there will be an invasion of Rome, then a 3 and a half year reign of an anti-pope forcibly installed by hostile world powers, and something like that. Some prophesies suggest such things.

But none of that has any bearing on the view of the Dimonds that the entire jurisdictional Hierarchy of governing Bishops can disappear. Do you believe such a thing is possible?
Do make Acts of Consecration to the Twin Hearts, Spiritual Offerings of the Precious Blood of Jesus in Union with the Holy Mass, like in St. Gertrude's Chaplet, along with Spiritual Communions at least every hour. The Saints say Spiritual Communions are a way to quickly advance to Union with God.


Offline forlorn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1110
  • Reputation: +450/-665
  • Gender: Male
There are many instances of Church authorities sometimes going against a Saint, then later realizing it and canonizing him; e.g. St. Athanasius, St. Joan of Arc, St. Padre Pio etc. We believe the same will happen to saintly Archbishop Lefebvre one day, though again that is not the subject of this thread - I wonder why sedes are afraid to come out and say at least, yes, the Dimonds defend objective heresy, when they say the Church needs no governing hierarchy. And they also misrepresent the historical facts and become heretical.

Anyway, as some of Rome's own Canon Lawyers explained, consecrating an auxiliary bishop, because it does not usurp the Pope's primacy of jurisdiction, does not constitute schism; only if a Bishop attempts to confer habitual jurisdiction on another Bishop - and Archbishop Lefebvre was crystal clear H.G. did not intend this and explicitly disclaimed it - is there an issue. Cardinal Oddi said "Merci, Monsignor" (Thank you, Monsignor) over Archbishop Lefebvre's tomb, and +ABL passed into eternity on March 25th, a signal grace of sanctity because it is such a holy day. St. Padre Pio himself venerated Archbishop Lefebvre.

"The Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of the Catholic Institute of Paris, Fr. Patrick Valdrini, confirmed that “it is not the consecration of a bishop that creates a schism; what consummates the schism is to confer upon that bishop an apostolic mission” (Valeurs Actuelles, July 4, 1988 ).

Finally, on January 21, 2009, a decree of the Congregation for Bishops, signed by its Prefect, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, based on the faculties expressly granted by Pope Benedict XVI, declared the decree of July 1, 1988, to be deprived of any juridical effect." https://fsspx.org/en/sspx%E2%80%99s-bishops


So all that is in the past now anyway. Now, back to the Dimonds. Do you agree with them, or do you agree that they are objectively heretical?
About the same time you admit that, while also believing that Vatican 2 and the Conciliar Church's hierarchy are valid and legitimate, it's heretical and/or schismatic to:
(1) say the canons of the masses of the Church contain errors
(2) reject much of the Magisterium and declare it in error
(3) ignore and openly defy the authority of the legitimate Catholic hierarchy and Pope
(4) knowingly go to masses of a society with no canonical status with priests lacking any legitimate ministry within the Church (Pope Benedict XVI 2009 - "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers — even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty — do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."
(5) reject councils of the Church (Vatican 2)
(6) refer to Catholicism after one of its valid councils as a "false religion"

Offline DecemRationis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
  • Reputation: +54/-5
  • Gender: Male
Hi DecemRationis, is it your view that a Pope himself will be AntiChrist? I think that is impossible.

I think Francis may very well be the AntiChrist, and you call him pope. I believe that answers the question.

As I said in a prior post to you, Judas was an apostle, one given to Christ by the Father, and despite the Scripture telling us that "none" of those given to Christ by the Father is lost, Scripture also tells us Judas, one of the "given" was lost and a "son of perdition."  A contradiction? No. An anomaly, an exception to the rule ordained by God and woven into His plan.

Is Francis (or the future Anti-Christ) not a pope but an "anti-pope"? You know the movie Bambi? Well, like the skunk told Bambi when he called him a flower, "you can call me a flower if you want to." You can call the Anti-Christ pope an antipope if you want to.

It's semantics that would matter - if we weren't dealing with a mystery that's steps out of the usual governing rules of the "game" like a miracle in the natural order.

And the battle over the semantics (between Sede and R & R) as we grapple with this ordained mystery is the standard fare on every Traditional Catholic blog or forum in existence I think.


What is possible, since the Pope is Christ's Vicar, is that Anti-Christ is an Anti-Pope truly and properly so-called. I think it possible and even probable. Simon Magus was considered by many as a prefigurement of Anti-Christ, and he set up something like an anti-church in Rome, opposing Sts. Peter and Paul, like every anti-pope opposes the True Pope. Judas, the son of perdition, was also considered as a prefigurement of anti-Christ, an apostate bishop. I think it is quite possible there will be an invasion of Rome, then a 3 and a half year reign of an anti-pope forcibly installed by hostile world powers, and something like that. Some prophesies suggest such things.

Was Judas a "bishop" or an anti-bishop heretic apostate? You just called him a "bishop." Think about that. Semantics. Thanks for putting this in the right perspective.

But none of that has any bearing on the view of the Dimonds that the entire jurisdictional Hierarchy of governing Bishops can disappear. Do you believe such a thing is possible?

I don't know. That might be part of the ordained anomaly of the end times, after all of the elect have been sealed. Apoc. 7:3. While I think it is possible (like the end times anomaly of a "pope" who is an apostate heretic), I think not however. I do not believe we have not had at least a few orthodox ordinaries who had, and taught, the Catholic faith at all times during period of the Conciliar Church. Bishop Schneider jumps to mind as to the present time. He's an auxiliary bishop so I'm not sure if he qualifies, but I believe there are, and have always been, ordinaries who possess the Catholic faith and therefore carry on the work of the apostles.  
I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

Offline XavierSem

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1252
  • Reputation: +75/-121
  • Gender: Male
  • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
Quote from: DecemRationis
I think not however. I do not believe we have not had at least a few orthodox ordinaries who had, and taught, the Catholic faith at all times during period of the Conciliar Church. Bishop Schneider jumps to mind as to the present time. He's an auxiliary bishop so I'm not sure if he qualifies, but I believe there are, and have always been, ordinaries who possess the Catholic faith and therefore carry on the work of the apostles.

Ok, great. This was the main question in this thread, as Peter Dimond denies it. But regarding AntiChrist, (1) do you believe there is an AntiChrist before the Period of Peace? (2) The books generally say that AntiChrist will reign for 3 1/2 years over the whole earth, it will be a time of great persecution over the whole earth, the Pope will be driven away, the old temple will be built again, AntiChrist will restore the animal sacrifices, claim to be Christ and God, and want to be worshiped as such etc. I don't think this fits. 

Maybe 10 years from now, for e.g. we could have an Anti-Pope. Anti-Pope has historically been used to mean, a false claimant opposing the real Pope. Thus, for example, we speak of Anti-Pope Natalius in opposition to Pope St. Zephyrinus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope#List_of_historical_antipopes

I believe we can have one or even more than one Anti-Popes, but it will be (1) in opposition to the true Pope, (2) this Anti-Pope will never be universally accepted by the Cardinals and Ordinaries of the Church. So that's why I don't think we're there yet. Your thoughts?
Do make Acts of Consecration to the Twin Hearts, Spiritual Offerings of the Precious Blood of Jesus in Union with the Holy Mass, like in St. Gertrude's Chaplet, along with Spiritual Communions at least every hour. The Saints say Spiritual Communions are a way to quickly advance to Union with God.


Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17114
  • Reputation: +9503/-4049
  • Gender: Male
Xavier, don't you have better things to be doing with your time, like attending to your studies?  You would do well to learn a little logic, philosophy, and theology before embarrassing yourself here on CI.

Offline DecemRationis

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
  • Reputation: +54/-5
  • Gender: Male
Ok, great. This was the main question in this thread, as Peter Dimond denies it. But regarding AntiChrist, (1) do you believe there is an AntiChrist before the Period of Peace? (2) The books generally say that AntiChrist will reign for 3 1/2 years over the whole earth, it will be a time of great persecution over the whole earth, the Pope will be driven away, the old temple will be built again, AntiChrist will restore the animal sacrifices, claim to be Christ and God, and want to be worshiped as such etc. I don't think this fits.

What period of peace? St. Paul talks about the revolt (Latin, discessio, a schism) preceding the second coming of Our Lord in 2 Thessalonians 2. This is the most explicit teaching in Scripture on the end. A period of peace is conjecture. There is a lot of conjecture here of course. 

Maybe 10 years from now, for e.g. we could have an Anti-Pope. Anti-Pope has historically been used to mean, a false claimant opposing the real Pope. Thus, for example, we speak of Anti-Pope Natalius in opposition to Pope St. Zephyrinus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope#List_of_historical_antipopes

A man dressed in white elected by a majority of heretical cardinals who teaches and promulgates heresies to the Church is not an "anti-pope"?


I believe we can have one or even more than one Anti-Popes, but it will be (1) in opposition to the true Pope, (2) this Anti-Pope will never be universally accepted by the Cardinals and Ordinaries of the Church. So that's why I don't think we're there yet. Your thoughts?

The "anti-Pope" will be such that he will show such signs and wonders that are so deceptive they could almost seduce even the elect. Mark 13:22. Who professing the Catholic faith would be deceived by a "pope" not universally accepted by what appears to be the "Church"? Only such a "pope" appearing as the vicar of Christ could possibly seduce those who profess the integral Catholic faith. 

Such are my thoughts in response. 

I believe in the Apostolic Catholic Church. I reject and denounce the malfeasant or “dysfunctional papal or episcopal Newchurch.” - Father Paul Trinchard

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16