Catholics need to get “on Trend.” - Part I

The Catholic Church is consistently castigated as being behind the times and that it needs to “get with the times.” Those holding to this belief cite the Church’s recalcitrance to “get on trend” as the reason for emptying pews. The problem is not the faith of the Church. The problem is found in catechesis and receptivity of revelation by the faithful. Over the coming weeks, we’ll explore the synthesis of ALL heresies—i.e, Modernism—more deeply and begin to analyze modern topics that come into conflict with the faith. But, before we begin a detailed exploration of Modernism, ask yourself if you could take this oath and truly hold to it today:

_____________________________________________

I, [Name], firmly hold 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 directly oppose the errors of this age.

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 (cf. Rom 1:20), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause is known 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 facts, and especially miracles and prophecies, as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion, and I hold that these are especially suited to the intelligence of all ages and men, including those of our time.

Thirdly, I likewise firmly hold that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was directly and personally instituted by the true and historical Christ Himself, when He lived among us, and that the same Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.

Fourthly, I sincerely accept the doctrine of faith handed down to us from the Apostles through the orthodox Fathers, always in the same sense and interpretation, and I therefore completely reject the heretical notion of the evolution of dogma, which passes from one meaning to another different from the sense that the Church held from the beginning. [emphasis added]

I also condemn every error that substitutes for the divine deposit, entrusted by Christ to His spouse, a philosophical invention or a creation of human consciousness, gradually developed by the effort of human reason and to be perfected in the future by unlimited progress.

Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely profess that faith is not a blind religious feeling emerging from the subconscious under the pressure of the heart and inclination of the morally educated will, but is a true assent of the intellect to truth received from without by hearing, by which we believe to be true what has been revealed and attested by a personal God, our Creator and Lord, on account of His authority.

I submit, moreover, and hold with the utmost firmness all that has been handed down, defined, and declared by the Church’s infallible teaching authority, especially those points of doctrine which are directly opposed to the errors of this time.

And I affirm that I am completely opposed to the Modernist error that holds that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition, or what is far worse, that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, which would make tradition a mere fact of natural order, like other ordinary historical facts.

I firmly hold, therefore, that the faith of the Church has not been, and never shall be, altered in its true sense under the pretext and name of a higher understanding of reality.

I likewise condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian may assume a double personality ”that of a believer and at the same time of a historian” as if it were lawful for the historian to uphold something which contradicts the faith of the believer, or to establish premises from which it follows that dogmas are false or doubtful, provided they are not directly denied.

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, adopts the rationalist principles and with equal recklessness and lack of restraint considers textual criticism a supreme rule.

Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a teacher of the sacred sciences must 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 he must interpret the writings of each of the Fathers by the principles of science alone, disregarding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the study of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare myself completely opposed to the error of the Modernists, who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, which reduces tradition to a simple human event, akin to other common facts of history.

I hold most firmly, and shall hold until my dying breath, the faith of the Fathers regarding the certain charism of truth, which is, has been, and always will be in the succession of the episcopate from the Apostles.

The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored to what seems better or more suited to the culture of each age, but that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the Apostles from the beginning may never be believed differently, nor understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and that in teaching and speaking I shall never depart from them either in word or in writing. Thus I promise, thus I swear, so help me God.

______________________________

Sacrorum Antistitum, 1910