Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism)  (Read 1173 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline de Lugo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 563
  • Reputation: +421/-74
  • Gender: Male
Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism)
« on: August 17, 2022, 08:43:42 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sometimes, it is good to go back to the basics.


    The Motu Proprio
    "Sacrorum Antistitum"

    Given by His Holiness St. Pius X
    September 1, 1910
    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. 1:90), 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 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 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, and these holy Gospels of God which I touch with my hand.

    May God help us to keep this oath until death. Pray for the Restoration to come.




    Noblesse oblige.


    Offline HolyAngels

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 317
    • Reputation: +130/-28
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism)
    « Reply #1 on: August 17, 2022, 10:50:32 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Didn't every Cardinal at VII take that oath ? 
    For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places
    Ephesians 6:12


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41846
    • Reputation: +23909/-4344
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism)
    « Reply #2 on: August 18, 2022, 12:44:00 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Didn't every Cardinal at VII take that oath ?

    Yes, it was required until the Modernists rolled it back on July 17, 1967.

    Offline HolyAngels

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 317
    • Reputation: +130/-28
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism)
    « Reply #3 on: August 18, 2022, 04:11:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes, it was required until the Modernists rolled it back on July 17, 1967.
    It stood in their way no doubt.
    For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places
    Ephesians 6:12

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism)
    « Reply #4 on: August 19, 2022, 05:03:05 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I asked Fr. Paul Trinchard how they got rid of the oath and he told me a nice story.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13817
    • Reputation: +5566/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism)
    « Reply #5 on: August 20, 2022, 05:24:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I asked Fr. Paul Trinchard how they got rid of the oath and he told me a nice story.
    NEIL!! Hi how are you?!! Glad to see you for crying out loud! Are you back now I hope?
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline 2Vermont

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10051
    • Reputation: +5251/-916
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism)
    « Reply #6 on: August 20, 2022, 06:15:16 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • NEIL!! Hi how are you?!! Glad to see you for crying out loud! Are you back now I hope?
    Wow.  It's been years.  Yes, good to see you Neil.  This gives me hope that we might actually see RomanCatholic1953 again.
    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)

    Offline ServusInutilisDomini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 529
    • Reputation: +249/-87
    • Gender: Male
    • O sacrum convivum... https://youtu.be/-WCicnX6pN8
    Re: Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism)
    « Reply #7 on: August 20, 2022, 08:01:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I asked Fr. Paul Trinchard how they got rid of the oath and he told me a nice story.
    What's the story?


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism)
    « Reply #8 on: August 20, 2022, 04:10:15 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • NEIL!! Hi how are you?!! Glad to see you for crying out loud! Are you back now I hope?
    Howdy, Stubs. I missed you, too! I might be dropping in now and then, we'll see.
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18177
    • Reputation: +8276/-692
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism)
    « Reply #9 on: August 20, 2022, 04:43:56 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • What's the story?
                                                               .

    Sorry, I had to leave yesterday.

    Anyway, I had asked him what happened to change the longstanding tradition of having seminarians recite the Oath every year, who made the change, and why was it successful, since this had long been a question I'd had, and no one I'd found could give an answer.

    So he replied with this nice, personal testimony, which he told me he had not written in any of his books. I was riveted! 

    When he had been in his penultimate year (I'd like to say "Junior" but not sure if he used that term), the senior class ahead of him was scheduled to take the Oath (in Latin) on a specific day, some number of weeks prior to ordinations. In the past, any seminarian who failed to show up for this event was then later denied ordination, since it was a requirement by seminary policy that all candidates must take the Oath prior to ordination. As I recall, this is how it started back in the days of Pius X, either in 1910 with Sacrorum Antistitum or 1914 with Pascendi domenici gregis. 

    But when Fr. Trinchard was about to enter the graduating class next year, the then-current graduating class had some radical seminarians in it. He explained that one or more of them had likely made some kind of plan with one of the administrators, such that they had been assured ordination even if they would be absent for the Oath. So when the day arrived, it was observed by the other students that there had been some seminarians missing, and those attending had all been certain that the consequence would be that the missing would be prevented from becoming ordained, as the rules state and the longstanding tradition held. 

    HOWEVER, when the day for ordination finally arrived, the seminarians who had been absent for the group recitation of Sacrorum Antistitum showed up anyway, and then to the bewilderment of the rest, were ordained as if nothing had been amiss. 

    Fr. told me that no announcement was made, and no official policy change was disseminated, but rather the next year, when it was his own class' turn to take the Oath, even more of the seminarians failed to show up on the appointed day, and again, they were later all ordained. In subsequent years, the oath taking day was simply forgotten and as he recalled, no one was upset about it, as there were so many other changes going on anyway, it was just a small piece of the whole scene. 
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline ServusInutilisDomini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 529
    • Reputation: +249/-87
    • Gender: Male
    • O sacrum convivum... https://youtu.be/-WCicnX6pN8
    Re: Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism)
    « Reply #10 on: August 23, 2022, 08:03:48 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  •                                                           .

    Sorry, I had to leave yesterday.

    Anyway, I had asked him what happened to change the longstanding tradition of having seminarians recite the Oath every year, who made the change, and why was it successful, since this had long been a question I'd had, and no one I'd found could give an answer.

    So he replied with this nice, personal testimony, which he told me he had not written in any of his books. I was riveted!

    When he had been in his penultimate year (I'd like to say "Junior" but not sure if he used that term), the senior class ahead of him was scheduled to take the Oath (in Latin) on a specific day, some number of weeks prior to ordinations. In the past, any seminarian who failed to show up for this event was then later denied ordination, since it was a requirement by seminary policy that all candidates must take the Oath prior to ordination. As I recall, this is how it started back in the days of Pius X, either in 1910 with Sacrorum Antistitum or 1914 with Pascendi domenici gregis.

    But when Fr. Trinchard was about to enter the graduating class next year, the then-current graduating class had some radical seminarians in it. He explained that one or more of them had likely made some kind of plan with one of the administrators, such that they had been assured ordination even if they would be absent for the Oath. So when the day arrived, it was observed by the other students that there had been some seminarians missing, and those attending had all been certain that the consequence would be that the missing would be prevented from becoming ordained, as the rules state and the longstanding tradition held.

    HOWEVER, when the day for ordination finally arrived, the seminarians who had been absent for the group recitation of Sacrorum Antistitum showed up anyway, and then to the bewilderment of the rest, were ordained as if nothing had been amiss.

    Fr. told me that no announcement was made, and no official policy change was disseminated, but rather the next year, when it was his own class' turn to take the Oath, even more of the seminarians failed to show up on the appointed day, and again, they were later all ordained. In subsequent years, the oath taking day was simply forgotten and as he recalled, no one was upset about it, as there were so many other changes going on anyway, it was just a small piece of the whole scene.
    Thanks, that makes sense. So technically it is still required.


    Offline songbird

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4670
    • Reputation: +1765/-353
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Sacrorum Antistitum (Oath Against Modernism)
    « Reply #11 on: August 23, 2022, 01:53:47 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • thank you for posting the Oath.  My great great Uncle Priest of the Precious Blood took this oath every year. (ordained 1907), til the day he died, 1944.

    I read about 4-5 books by Fr. Paul Trinchard.  Fr. LeBlanc RIP made sure that all his parishioners were given his books.  Fr. Trinchard's books are printed 1996. Fr. Trinchard and Fr. LeBlanc were independents and were not sure about the popes being pope.  Fr. LeBlanc and I learnt at the same time, 2006 before his death that the pope was not Catholic, was manifest heretic. He was therefore not a pope.  Very good priests they were!