CathInfo.com

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 docuмents.

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. . .

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?

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?