Saintly Pope vs Lewd Buffoon

Saintly Pope

I wanted to re-read Pascendi Dominici Gregis, just for the desire to have a drink of pure water after the mud I must read about every single day. 

The encyclical starts with the following words: 

VENERABLE BRETHREN, HEALTH AND THE APOSTOLIC BLESSING:

1. One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called.

Well I had to stop here, and write this blog post. 

Lewd Buffoon

In three lines, at the very start, this holy man of God hammers down with great clarity and strong energy what the duty of a Pope is. He makes brutally clear that “profane novelties” and “knowledge so called” will always attach the faith, and the duty of a Pope is exactly to reject them. 

What a difference with the lewd buffoon currently sullying the sea of Peter. 

M

Francis: Omnia Instaurare In Homine

Awfully sorry, Your Holiness, but the Spirit has gone past your ideas now…

 

 

 

“The idea, therefore, is to save mankind, in the sense of restoring him to the centre: to the centre of society, of thought, of reflection. Restoring mankind to the centre. You do good work. You study, reflect, hold conferences for this reason – so that mankind is not discarded.”

Pope Francis is all in this phrase.

As around 70 people get a nice holiday in Rome to try to give sense to the economics nonsense of the man in Evangelii Gaudium, and thus try to save his face as much as they can by saying no, the Pope is for Capitalism and no, the Pope isn’t a nincompoop who does not know what he is talking about,  Francis keeps spreading his own secular thinking.

A man obsessed with removing Christ from the centre (of society, of thought, of reflection) and with putting mankind at his place.

We have gone from Omnia instaurare in Christo to “Omnia instaurare in homine”. The Pollyannas applaud and praise the great sensitivity of the man to the plight of the poor.

A Che Guevara in white. And a stupid one at that.

Please pray that this disgrace be taken away from us as soon as possible.

Mundabor

 

Squatters In The Vatican

Vatican personnel in a private moment

 

 

This is mad. Which is to say, it is very much V II.

The idea that St Pius X was not only “misunderstood”, but plain wrong in his approach to Modernism (as the man clearly implies) is, in itself, Modernist. You see it in the attitude of this chap (apparently a priest), who clearly states that Truth is to be dealt with differently now than it ever was; because hey, the Holy Ghost has said now it's better to do things differently.

There truly is a Satanical offensive underway, if the brazenness of these people comes to the point of attacking the most exemplary Popes of the past, openly belittling them (did some people ever believed Pius X “did not understand anything”? Really?) and making of them the paradigm of how not to do it as they pretend to offer us a new interpretative key to Truth.

The Modernists are camped in the middle of the Vatican, and go around undisturbed remaking the work of saintly Popes as if they owned the place.

They don't own the place. Christ owns the place. I hope the eviction of these miserable squatters will come soon.

Mundabor

 

Vain Talkers And Seducers

What follows is the first paragraph of Pascendi.

The battle we face is the battle of all times.

You might recognise the one or other character of whom the great St Pius X is talking.

The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things” (Acts xx. 30), “vain talkers and seducers” (Tit. i. 10), “erring and driving into error” (2 Tim. iii. 13). Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ’s kingdom itself. Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office.

St Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1.

Mundabor

Lessons In Papacy

The one on the right is not Pius X.

I wish Francis would dedicate some of the time he does not devote to hugging wheelchairs and talking nonsense “off-the cuff” to the reading of the writings of serious Popes of the past. 

If he did, he might at some point stumble on something like this:

But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can” When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace – the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man – when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people.

This is from Pope St. Pius X’s letter to the French Bishops and Archbishops against the movement of the Sillon, “Our Apostolic Mandate”.

What can Francis learn from texts like this one? Let us see: 

1. No hot air anywhere. NO “walking here”, and “meeting there”, and “go to the crossroads”, and “smell like a sheep”, and all the other nonsense that does not explain the main thing: whether one will be Catholic once he has come to the crossroads, or will simply say “look at me: how social, inclusive, and smelly I am”. No childish comparisons, either. A stern and crystal clear language. 

2. Truth administered without hesitation, and without compromise. Already the statement: “it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues” makes a massacre of 99% of Francis’ utterances since that fateful day almost one year ago.

3. The clear statement that you start from the Truth and use it to judge whether the slogans of men are or are not valid. If, on the other hand, the premises are wrong, then the entire thinking will be wrong. The result?: “A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity”. Francis has his fundamentals wrong. He is full of an earthly (populist, and rather resentful) ideology and tries to adjust Catholicism to it. He makes exactly the mistake Pope St. Pius X is lamenting. 

4. Statements written for adults. Longish periods, rich in subordinates. Statements requiring one to think rather than emote. A writing style that makes clear the reader has the responsibility to attentively absorb what the Pope is saying, rather than showing the reader how well the Pope has absorbed the stupidity of the world. Can you imagine the author of the statement above saying “who am I to judge” when confronted with a sodomite as close collaborator?

—————

There are no excuses for a bad Pope. Even a slow-witted, ill-instructed Pope could and should lock himself in his study and absorb from the great Popes of the past and the immense, invaluable patrimony they have left us the proper way to act and express himself like a Pope; asking his speech-writers to elaborate with modern examples on the concept already beautifully expressed by them, and following their lead in their understanding of Church Tradition and the  Fathers.

The great Popes of the past have lessons in papacy available to every Pope for free, at the only cost of a touch of… humility.

Francis does not think he needs any lesson. He thinks he can make everything new. He thinks he can build his own papacy on the chimerical construction lamented by his great predecessor.  Let us recall Pius X’s words about:

“the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, “the reign of love and justice” with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them – their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them – a “generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can”

Add heresy to the above mentioned statement, and what you have is pure Francis. 

Mundabor

“Thus I Promise, This I Swear, So Help Me God”.

Extremely narrow-minded and obsessed with orthodoxy: Pope St. Pius X

The Oath Against Modernism.

St. Pius X, pray for us!

——

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 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. . .

His Holiness St. Pius X, 1 September 1910.

The Oath Against Modernism.

St Pius X, pray for us!

 

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 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. . .

His Holiness St. Pius X, 1 September 1910.

Patience, Resignation, Inertia

Priorities right: Pope St. Pius X

When the talk is about the problems in the Vatican – and within the Church at large –  I understand we Catholic bloggers – from the obscure laymen like myself to the better known names on the Web – can be perceived a bit like armchair generals, ready to shoot from the security of their keyboards without having to actually carry the responsibility for such a complicated matter as to running a diocese, let alone the Church.

The argument doesn’t really stand.

If the blogger is a realistic one, he will not write things like “kick 90% of the bishops to Patagonia NOW”. It doesn’t work that way and anyone knowing a bit about the workings of complex organisations knows it. He will, though, write something that is at the same time highly realistic, and eminently feasible.

Many Popes in the past have been rather harsh. Pope Pius X was not a good diplomatic (he was, actually, dismal at that) but, crucially, he was good at doing things, rather than talking about them or complaining about the cruelty of the world, which refuses to adjust to his wishes without conflict.  He was, besides being saintly, an eminently practical man: he identified a problem, and then he acted against it. He knew talking about it was not enough, and wishing the problem to go away would also not help. He also knew, I think, writing a new book whilst there were burning problems to be addressed would help the least.

Alas, we have a completely opposite situation now, with the last two Popes better at travelling the world, writing books and/or  marketing themselves than at doing the hard, consuming, ungrateful, obscure, daily work of being the Pope. The one travelled around the world and kissed the earth when he arrived – the media loved it; I never understood whether he was really scared to fly, or sincerely worshipping the earth -; the other continued with his ambitious editorial programme whilst his hierarchy didn’t know how to spell “Williamson”   (otherwise they’d have googled him, just for the curiosity), and his bishops couldn’t even stand a  Christian like Monsignor Wagner to be made bishop. Who cares, as long as the airport fields are full.

How to get out of this? How to avoid the next Pope being another who thinks the most important organisation existing on earth simply does not need leadership? My suggestion is that when the times comes, the Cardinals put orthodoxy and leadership at the top of the requirements for the job; with personal saintliness, theological prowess, or media expertise way back in the list.

This is not about asking for the moon, or leaving in a dream. It’s about wondering whether among 120 Cardinals there is no one who unites a sincere orthodoxy to the desire to fight the good not in words – for too long words have been considered acceptable alternatives to deed; this grates me immeasurably – but in deeds.

It does not really take so much. To let the Vatican work is not a matter of magic, but of simple leadership. Leadership works, and it is not a matter of obscure voodoo. Send the first inept Cardinal in the wilderness, and no one will notice. Do it with a second, and many people will take notice. Follow up with a third, and you’ll see all others marching like toy soldiers.

The same with bishops. Does it need a genius to understand Archbishop Nichols is as Christian as my door handle? Why on earth was the chap in these photos made bishop? Who appointed him bishop? You don’t say!?

How on earth can a heresy explode in the heart of Europe whilst the Pope is… writing books? Should he not deal with the bonfires in his realm first? Am I asking too much? How many books before the same happens in Germany? Oh wait, we’re already there! Who would have thought it?

I hope and pray the next Pope will be a doer, rather than a talker or a writer. For Heaven’s sake not a genius, or someone thinking himself too clever and intellectually accomplished for something as vulgar and earthly as action. Someone with enough limited intellect to  understand the basics of human behaviour: that people (yes! Even Cardinals!) eschew pain and seek pleasure, and if they run the risk of ending up somewhere in Zimbabwe they’ll obey all right or ask to be relieved from office. This is nothing new, nothing revolutionary, nothing that does not follow elementary principles applied in every company, even the badly run ones.

Pope St. Pius X demanded something very simple: accountability. One had to say which side he was on, period. Unthinkable? Hardly. Impossible? He did it. Please don’t tell me “oh but today is different”. Today is not different at all. The powers of the Pope have not changed, nor has human nature.

You punish one, and one hundred learn to behave. You refuse to punish, and anarchy ensues. It will be so for as long as there are human beings breathing.

I am sure I interpret the feelings of many readers when I say I ask for no revolution, and no miraculous works. Just a normal, pragmatic approach, like the one it is used every day even in badly run companies. An approach based on leading instead of talking, acting instead of complaining, punishing and if necessary kicking out the heretics instead of starting a dialogue with them. One thing is patience, another resignation, another still inertia.

We shall see. Don’t hold your breath.

Mundabor

The Oath Against Modernism

Not the Assisi-Type: Pope St. Pius X

I have read this on Father Ray Blake’s Blog, and gladly respond to the invitation of putting it up in our own blogs.

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. 1:90), 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 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.