Screen Shot 2015-01-26 at 10.47.31In response to Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri’s comment that “dogma has its own evolution”, a reader on my Register blog aptly quoted Pope St. Pius X’s ‘Oath Against Modernism’.

The head of the Synod of Bishops secretariat, responsible for organizing the highly controversial October Synod on the Family, told Aleteia last week: “There’s no reason to be scandalized that there is a cardinal or a theologian saying something that’s different than the so-called ‘common doctrine.’ This doesn’t imply a going against. It means reflecting. Because dogma has its own evolution; that is a development, not a change.”

The contrast between his comments and St. Pius’ ‘Oath Against Modernism’ is striking, and worth highlighting given the confusion surrounding this synod and the engineering that seems to be taking place behind the scenes.

Here below is the oath with relevant passages in bold:

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM

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. 1:19), 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. . .

 

  1. Ernesto Goingo 31/01/2015

    It can’t be more clearer than that.The cardinal is wrong.

  2. Max Hellstern sr 01/02/2015

    even De elite
    will be led astray.

  3. Sonja Woodman 01/02/2015

    When the Pope surrounds himself with such misguided heretics what can we do to make him more aware of the fallacies? Pray, Pray and Pray some more that the Holy Spirit protects his Holy Church from evil without and within.

    • Steve Kintgen 01/02/2015

      Absolutely Sonja!!!!

    • PAUL 05/02/2015

      Everyone – – – – Contact your own Diocese office and answer the questions in the 2014 ‘Lineamenta’ that will be used for the 2015 Synod.
      All Diocese have been invited to participate and that means each of you.
      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20141209_lineamenta-xiv-assembly_en.html

      CCC: ” 907 “In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty
      to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church,
      and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful,
      with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.”
      .
      This is your opportunity. Answers must come through your own Diocese, and have a Feb 20 deadline.

  4. Joseph D'Hippolito 02/02/2015

    This was the same approach used to justify John Paul II’s arbitrary, revisionist, abolitionist stance on capital punishment — one that contradicted centuries of teaching from both Scripture and Tradition:

    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=1463

    Even if you quote me the CCC, I can tell you that it reflects a shift from the inviolability of the divine image in mankind as the ultimate criterion to the state’s ability to incarcerate capital felons.

    I suggest that more Catholics familiarize themselves with Malachi 3:6: “I am the LORD; I do not change.”

  5. Robert Wanninger 02/02/2015

    Consider also the following from Chapter 4. On Faith and Reason, Articles 13 and 14, from the decrees of the First Vatican Council, “For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
    not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
    but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
    Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.”

  6. LF 02/02/2015

    The “problem” is not that the cardinal is wrong. The “problem” is that the cardenal is heretic. In Canon Law we read heretics are excommunicated latae sententiae.

    Can be a heretic secretary of a Bishop Synod?

  7. Joseph D'Hippolito 03/02/2015

    I wonder how long it will take Catholics to realize that the Church’s leadership is full-blown apostate?

  8. PAUL 05/02/2015

    Cardinal Baldiserri is a heretic, as is Kasper and Danneels,
    and some others the Pope has surrounded himself with
    and put in positions of influence.

    CCC 2089 – for Church definition of “heresy”.

One Trackback

  1. […] Edward Pentin has another disturbing revelation regarding Cardinal Baldisseri’s statements to the conclave at the Vatican last month of many large pro-family organizations.  In a quote I have not seen elsewhere, Baldisseri discusses his views on Dogma, and how it can “evolve,” using the term in the same sense as the modernists condemned over a century ago by Saint Pius X.  If one reads the entire Oath Against Modernism, it is quite easy to find that Pius X completely repudiated the concept that Dogmas could “evolve” into contradictory meanings, or even be watered down to the point that they have essentially no meaning or force, even as a “pastoral” recourse. […]

Comments

Post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Consultancy and Educational Services on the
Papacy, the Vatican and the Catholic Church