Quercetin… it works with the zinc. In fact, you can buy combo products that have both in one pill.
And it might just cure the cancer you didn’t know you had.
“Apoptosis” = DEATH
“Quercetin, a kind of dietary flavonoid, has shown its anticancer activity in many kinds of cancers including hematological malignancies (acute myelogenous leukemia, chronic myelogenous leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and MM) in vitro and in vivo. However, its effects on MM need further investigation. In this study, MM cell lines were treated with quercetin alone or in combination with dexamethasone. In order to observe the effects in vivo, a xenograft model of human myeloma was established. Quercetin inhibited proliferation of MM cells (RPMI8226, ARP-1, and MM.1R) by inducing cell cycle arrest in the G2/M phase and apoptosis. Western blot showed that quercetin downregulated c-myc expression and upregulated p21 expression. Quercetin also activated caspase-3, caspase-9, and poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase 1. Caspase inhibitors partially blocked apoptosis induced by quercetin. Furthermore, quercetin combined with dexamethasone significantly increased MM cell apoptosis. In vivo xenograft models, quercetin obviously inhibited tumor growth. Caspase-3 was activated to a greater extent when quercetin was combined with dexamethasone. In conclusion, quercetin alone or in combination with dexamethasone may be an effective therapy for MM.”
RESULTS: Quercetin inhibited proliferation of MM cell lines
The study examined the effect of quercetin on different MM cell lines by treating MM cells with different doses of quercetin for 24, 48, and 72 h. MTT showed that quercetin inhibited MM cell proliferation in a dose- and time-dependent manner, as shown in Figure 1A–1C. However, the proliferation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells isolated from healthy individuals (n = 3) was not significantly inhibited, suggesting that quercetin had little cytotoxic effect on normal mononuclear cells, as shown in Figure Figure1D1D.
Ahead of President Joe Biden’s announcement Thursday about new COVID-19 measures, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said that there may be new measures that will be imposed on unvaccinated people.
“There are six steps the president’s announcing, there will be new components,” Psaki told reporters on Wednesday. “Some of that will be related to access to testing, some will be related to mandates, some will be related to how we ensure kids will be protected in schools.”
When asked about how the new steps would impact Americans’ lives, Psaki said that “it depends on if you’re vaccinated or not.”
“Recently, ivermectin (a US FDA-approved antiparasitic drug) has been explored as an anti-SARS-CoV-2 agent. Herein, we have studied the possible mechanism of action of ivermectin using in silico approaches. Materials & methods: Interaction of ivermectin against the key proteins involved in SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis were investigated through molecular docking and molecular dynamic simulation. Results:Ivermectin was found as a blocker of viral replicase, protease and human TMPRSS2, which could be the biophysical basis behind its antiviral efficiency. The antiviral action and ADMET profile of ivermectin was on par with the currently used anticorona drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir.
“Ivermectin is a popular choice of drug for treating various parasitic infections till today. Since 1987, this drug has been used to treat more than 3.7 billion onchocerciasis patients through the Mectizan Donation Programme sponsored by Merck for eliminating of onchocerciasis … A major advantage of using this FDA-approved drug is its relatively benign nature at treatment doses in humans . Recently, ivermectin has been reported for antiviral activity toward SARS-CoV-2 in vitro . The study depicts that a low dose of ivermectin (5 micromolar) can induce 93% reduction in viral RNA from released virion and 99.8% reduction in cell-associated/unreleased virion after 24 h of incubation . Researchers have hypothesized that ivermectin binds and impairs Impα/β1 heterodimer, which plays a key role in binding the cargo protein of coronavirus and facilitates its translocation toward the nucleus . Moreover, researchers have also claimed that ivermectin molecules may act as ionophores and be capable of producing osmotic lysis of the viral membrane . Considering the high and rapid viricidal activity of ivermectin, involvement of a specific target is a question. Therefore, the present study was conducted in silico to explore the possible molecular targets of ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 and the possible mechanism of interactions between ivermectin and the proteins involved in the viral pathogenesis. Such molecular interactions between ivermectin and the target proteins are most likely mediating the rapid and intense antiviral efficacy of ivermectin.
“Spike glycoprotein has been the major viral molecule involved in binding host cell surface receptor and establishing infection . Our molecular docking data and counter verification by molecular dynamic simulation collectively evidenced that ivermectin targets S2 subunit of spike protein and may cause conformational change, which may interfere with spike protein-ACE2 interaction (Figure 1A, Table 1 & Supplementary Table 1). SARS-CoV-2 uses a protease enzyme, namely chymotrypsin-like protease (3CLpro) or main protease (Mpro), which perform an important function to prime spike protein-mediated binding to human ACE2 and entry of the virus . Herein, we checked the interaction between ivermectin and the viral protease and found a strong hydrophobic interaction between these two (Figure 1B & Table 1). Interestingly, the binding efficacy of ivermectin to SARS-CoV-2 replicase/RDRP was to found to be relatively high (Figure 2A–B & Table 1). In fact, ivermectin was found to be the best out of the three drugs in binding with viral replicase (Supplementary Table 2).”
“In a normal year, the Kentucky Poison Control Center might receive one call from someone who has taken ivermectin, a drug commonly used to treat parasites in livestock. But amid increasing misinformation about the drug’s ability to both treat and prevent COVID-19, that number has increased to six this year.”
This alarming news was published in Spectrum News – formerly known as Time Warner Cable – on August 24, 2021, and should be a lesson to every American.
“Minnesota’s Poison Control System is dealing with the same problem. According to the department, only one Ivermectin exposure case [telephone call] was reported in July, but in August, the figure jumped to nine.”
Suddenly we see hundreds of articles on so-called “Ivermectin poisoning.” Indeed, we see more ARTICLES published than there were TELEPHONE CALLS in August on Ivermectin to poison control centers in the ENTIRE NATION.
NPR reports that during the period January 1 to August 31, there were 1,143 Ivermectin telephone calls to poison control centers which works out to 143 calls per month.
The Mississippi State Department of Health was careful to clarify that although telephone calls to poison control had increased, the vast majority of callers had only mild symptoms, and there were “no hospitalizations due to Ivermectin toxicity.”
If you are still left wondering whether there might have been a tiny grain of truth in these articles, consider what was reported in Utah. This alarmist article is entitled, “The Utah Poison Control Center has seen a bump in calls about Ivermectin – which is not recommended for treating COVID-19.”
However, inside the article, you will notice the false alarm. The Medical Director of Utah poison control is quoted as admitting that it was only “some small increase” in Ivermectin phone calls, and no one required hospitalization.
Yet for Utah alone, I counted at least twenty Ivermectin poison control articles, and for the nation, the count was well into the hundreds.
At least one publication made the leap from exaggeration to fabrication. Rolling Stone Magazine published an interview with an Oklahoma osteopathic physician, Dr. Jason McElyea, who claimed that Northeastern Hospital System’s emergency departments were overrun with so many Ivermectin overdoses that gunshot victims were having difficulty getting treatment. Dr. McElyea stated,
“The ERs are so backed up that gunshots victims were having a hard time getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated.”
Multiple networks repeated the story, and it went viral.
But the report turned out to be false.
Rolling Stone was forced to publish a retraction of sorts, a correction to their report, wherein they stated the truth of the matter was the opposite. Northeastern Hospital System Sequoyah informed them that Dr. Jason McElyea, although affiliated with them, had not worked in the Sallisaw location in the last two months.
Furthermore, in a statement issued September 5, 2021, Northeastern Hospital System Sequoyah reported that no patients had been treated for Ivermectin overdose. Indeed no patients were treated for any complications of taking Ivermectin – and no gunshot wound patients or otherwise had been turned away from seeking emergency care.
However, you can do your own research. For example, google the news on Ivermectin poisoning articles, and you will find almost all of them were published within the last few weeks. Nothing before then…
Note, it’s not a retraction, nor even a correction, but merely an “update.” They’re not even sorry. They hate this story being fake, almost as much as they hate you. You would think all this legalized weed would have them more chill.
By the way… the original story from the lying local Channel 4, still not touched, still not taken down. If you have any doubt that Marxism is alive and well in Oklahoma, have a few clicks around their website. Just look at some of the headlines.
“It’s not safe. It isn’t safe, it isn’t intended for this use. It has the potential to cause multiple organ failure and could land you in the hospital. And, hopefully not, it could also land you dead,” Sherman said.
Remember, Ivermectin is not just an anti-parasitic, but a KNOWN anti-viral drug. Anyone claiming otherwise is either ignorant or malicious.
There is no way they could engineer a pogrom as such, complete with multi-media propaganda featuring celebrities and such, while at the say time ignoring/silencing real doctors and honest researchers on the ground, right?
Except they already tried it before. Practice run was in 1976. Watch the first five minutes of this:
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X ON THE DOCTRINES OF THE MODERNISTS
8th September 1907
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.
Gravity of the Situation
2. That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man.
3. Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can justly be surprised that We number such men among the enemies of the Church, if, leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge, he is acquainted with their tenets, their manner of speech, their conduct. Nor indeed will he err in accounting them the most pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For as We have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation not from without but from within; hence, the danger is present almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of her. Moreover they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further, none is more skilful, none more astute than they, in the employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that they lead a life of the greatest activity, of assiduous and ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they possess, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest morality. Finally, and this almost destroys all hope of cure, their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.
Once indeed We had hopes of recalling them to a better sense, and to this end we first of all showed them kindness as Our children, then we treated them with severity, and at last We have had recourse, though with great reluctance, to public reproof. But you know, Venerable Brethren, how fruitless has been Our action. They bowed their head for a moment, but it was soon uplifted more arrogantly than ever. If it were a matter which concerned them alone, We might perhaps have overlooked it: but the security of the Catholic name is at stake. Wherefore, as to maintain it longer would be a crime, We must now break silence, in order to expose before the whole Church in their true colours those men who have assumed this bad disguise.
If you really want to understand how we got here, 114 years later, go read the rest:
Lamentabili Sane, July 3, 1907 Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists
With truly lamentable results, our age, casting aside all restraint in its search for the ultimate causes of things, frequently pursues novelties so ardently that it rejects the legacy of the human race. Thus it falls into very serious errors, which are even more serious when they concern sacred authority, the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and the principal mysteries of Faith. The fact that many Catholic writers also go beyond the limits determined by the Fathers and the Church herself is extremely regrettable. In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas.
These errors are being daily spread among the faithful. Lest they captivate the faithfuls’ minds and corrupt the purity of their faith. His Holiness, Pius X, by Divine Providence, Pope, has decided that the chief errors should be noted and condemned by the Office of this Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition.
Therefore, after a very diligent investigation and consultation with the Reverend Consultors, the Most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinal, the General Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals have judged the following propositions to be condemned and proscribed. In fact, by this general decree, they are condemned and proscribed.
1. The ecclesiastical law which prescribes that books concerning the Divine Scriptures are subject to previous examination does not apply to critical scholars and students of scientific exegesis of the Old and New Testament. CONDEMNED
2. The Church’s interpretation of the Sacred Books is by no means to be rejected; nevertheless, it is subject to the more accurate judgment and correction of the exegetes. CONDEMNED
3. From the ecclesiastical judgments and censures passed against free and more scientific exegesis, one can conclude that the Faith the Church proposes contradicts history and that Catholic teaching cannot really be reconciled with the true origins of the Christian religion. CONDEMNED
4. Even by dogmatic definitions the Church’s magisterium cannot determine the genuine sense of the Sacred Scriptures. CONDEMNED
5. Since the deposit of Faith contains only revealed truths, the Church has no right to pass judgment on the assertions of the human sciences. CONDEMNED
6. The “Church learning” and the “Church teaching” collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it only remains for the “Church teaching” to sanction the opinions of the “Church learning.” CONDEMNED
7. In proscribing errors, the Church cannot demand any paternal assent from the faithful by which the judgments she issues are to be embraced. CONDEMNED
8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations. CONDEMNED
9. They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures. CONDEMNED
10. The inspiration of the books of the Old Testament consists in this: The Israelite writers handed down religious doctrines under a peculiar aspect which was either little or not at all known to the Gentiles. CONDEMNED
11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error. CONDEMNED
12. If he wishes to apply himself usefully to Biblical studies, the exegete must first put aside all preconceived opinions about the supernatural origin of Sacred Scripture and interpret it the same as any other merely human document. CONDEMNED
13. The Evangelists themselves, as well as the Christians of the second and third generation, artificially arranged the evangelical parables. In such a way they explained the scanty fruit of the preaching of Christ among the Jews. CONDEMNED
14. In many narrations the Evangelists recorded, not so much things that are true, as things which, even though false, they judged to be more profitable for their readers. CONDEMNED
15. Until the time the canon was defined and constituted, the Gospels were increased by additions and corrections. Therefore there remained in them only a faint and uncertain trace of the doctrine of Christ. CONDEMNED
16. The narrations of John are not properly history, but a mystical contemplation of the Gospel. The discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations, lacking historical truth concerning the mystery of salvation. CONDEMNED
17. The fourth Gospel exaggerated miracles not only in order that the extraordinary might stand out but also in order that it might become more suitable for showing forth the work and glory of the Word Incarnate. CONDEMNED
18. John claims for himself the quality of witness concerning Christ. In reality, however, he is only a distinguished witness of the Christian life, or of the life of Christ in the Church at the close of the first century. CONDEMNED
19. Heterodox exegetes have expressed the true sense of the Scriptures more faithfully than Catholic exegetes. CONDEMNED
20. Revelation could be nothing else than the consciousness man acquired of his relation to God. CONDEMNED
21. Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles. CONDEMNED
22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort. CONDEMNED
23. Opposition may, and actually does, exist between the facts narrated in Sacred Scripture and the Church’s dogmas which rest on them. Thus the critic may reject as false facts the Church holds as most certain. CONDEMNED
24. The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves. CONDEMNED
25. The assent of faith ultimately rests on a mass of probabilities. CONDEMNED
26. The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing. CONDEMNED
27. The divinity of Jesus Christ is not proved from the Gospels. It is a dogma which the Christian conscience has derived from the notion of the Messias. CONDEMNED
28. While He was exercising His ministry, Jesus did not speak with the object of teaching He was Messias, nor did His miracles tend to prove it. CONDEMNED
29. It is permissible to grant that the Christ of history is far inferior to the Christ Who is the object of faith. CONDEMNED
30. In all the evangelical texts the name “Son of God” is equivalent only to that of “Messias.” It does not in the least way signify that Christ is the true and natural Son of God. CONDEMNED
31. The doctrine concerning Christ taught by Paul, John, and the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus and Chalcedon is not that which Jesus taught but that which the Christian conscience conceived concerning Jesus. CONDEMNED
32. It is impossible to reconcile the natural sense of the Gospel texts with the sense taught by our theologians concerning the conscience and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ. CONDEMNED
33. Everyone who is not led by preconceived opinions can readily see that either Jesus professed an error concerning the immediate Messianic coming or the greater part of His doctrine as contained in the Gospels is destitute of authenticity. CONDEMNED
34. The critics can ascribe to Christ a knowledge without limits only on a hypothesis which cannot be historically conceived and which is repugnant to the moral sense. That hypothesis is that Christ as man possessed the knowledge of God and yet was unwilling to communicate the knowledge of a great many things to His disciples and posterity. CONDEMNED
35. Christ did not always possess the. consciousness of His Messianic dignity. CONDEMNED
36. The Resurrection of the Saviour is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstrated nor demonstrable) which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other facts. CONDEMNED
37. In the beginning, faith in the Resurrection of Christ was not so much in the fact itself of the Resurrection as in the immortal life of Christ with God. CONDEMNED
38. The doctrine of the expiatory death of Christ is Pauline and not evangelical. CONDEMNED
39. The opinions concerning the origin of the Sacraments which the Fathers of Trent held and which certainly influenced their dogmatic canons are very different from those which now rightly exist among historians who examine Christianity. CONDEMNED
40. The Sacraments had their origin in the fact that the Apostles and their successors, swayed and moved by circumstances and events, interpreted some idea and intention of Christ. CONDEMNED
41. The Sacraments are intended merely to recall to man’s mind the ever-beneficent presence of the Creator. CONDEMNED
42. The Christian community imposed the necessity of Baptism, adopted it as a necessary rite, and added to it the obligation of the Christian profession. CONDEMNED
43. The practice of administering Baptism to infants was a disciplinary evolution, which became one of the causes why the Sacrament was divided into two, namely. Baptism and Penance. CONDEMNED
44. There is nothing to prove that the rite of the Sacrament of Confirmation was employed by the Apostles. The formal distinction of the two Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation does not pertain to the history of primitive Christianity. CONDEMNED
45. Not everything which Paul narrates concerning the institution of the Eucharist (I Cor. 11; 23-25) is, to be taken historically. CONDEMNED
46. In the primitive Church the concept of the Christian sinner reconciled by the authority of the Church did not exist. Only very slowly did the Church accustom herself to this concept. As a matter of fact, even after Penance was recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called a Sacrament since it would be held as a disgraceful Sacrament. CONDEMNED
47. The words of the Lord, “Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” (John 20: 22-23), in no way refer to the Sacrament of Penance, in spite of what it pleased the Fathers of Trent to say. CONDEMNED
48. In his Epistle (Ch. 5:14-15) James did not intend to promulgate a Sacrament of Christ but only commend a pious custom. If in this custom he happens to distinguish a means of grace, it is not in that rigorous manner in which it was taken by the theologians who laid down the notion and number of the Sacraments. CONDEMNED
49. When the Christian supper gradually assumed the nature of a liturgical action those who customarily presided over the supper acquired the sacerdotal character. CONDEMNED
50. The elders who fulfilled the office of watching over the gatherings of the faithful were instituted by the Apostles as priests or bishops to provide for the necessary ordering of the increasing communities and not properly for the perpetuation of the Apostolic mission and power. CONDEMNED
51. It is impossible that Matrimony could have become a Sacrament of the new law until later in the Church since it was necessary that a full theological explication of the doctrine of grace and the Sacraments should first take place before Matrimony should be held as a Sacrament. CONDEMNED
52. It was far from the mind of Christ to found a Church as a society which would continue on earth for a long course of centuries. On the contrary, in the mind of Christ the kingdom of heaven together with the end of the world was about to come immediately. CONDEMNED
53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution. CONDEMNED
54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel. CONDEMNED
55. Simon Peter never even suspected that Christ entrusted the primacy in the Church to him. CONDEMNED
56. The Roman Church became the head of all the churches, not through the ordinance of Divine Providence, but merely through political conditions. CONDEMNED
57. The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences. CONDEMNED
58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him. CONDEMNED
59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places. CONDEMNED
60. Christian Doctrine was originally Judaic. Through successive evolutions it became first Pauline, then Joannine, finally Hellenic and universal. CONDEMNED
61. It may be said without paradox that there is no chapter of Scripture, from the first of Genesis to the last of the Apocalypse, which contains a doctrine absolutely identical with that which the Church teaches on the same matter. For the same reason, therefore, no chapter of Scripture has the same sense for the critic and the theologian. CONDEMNED
62. The chief articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first ages as they have for the Christians of our time. CONDEMNED
63. The Church shows that she is incapable of effectively maintaining evangelical ethics since she obstinately clings to immutable doctrines which cannot be reconciled with modem progress. CONDEMNED
64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be readjusted. CONDEMNED
65. Modern Catholicism can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism. CONDEMNED
The following Thursday, the fourth day of the same month and year, all these matters were accurately reported to our Most Holy Lord, Pope Pius X. His Holiness approved and confirmed the decree of the Most Eminent Fathers and ordered that each and every one of the above-listed propositions be held by all as condemned and proscribed.
Peter Palombelli, Notary of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition
On Rejecting Inovation and Protecting the Faith
“Our Apostolic Mandate requires from Us that We watch over the purity of the Faith and the integrity of Catholic discipline. It requires from Us that We protect the faithful from evil and error; especially so when evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are nonetheless nefarious.”
Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique, 1910.
“. . . . it is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments.”
Pope St. Pius X, Ex quo, Dec. 26, 1910 as sourced from Denzinger. 2147 a
Oath Against Modernism
With the decree Lamentabili (1907) and the encyclical Pascendi (1907), the dangers of the modernist interpretation of Catholic truth had been exposed and fully expounded. Nevertheless, efforts to promote the modernist cause were continued in various countries. To eliminate the possibility of modernist error spreading through the clergy, St. Pius X (1903-14) drew up and published on September 1, 1910, the following oath against modernism and imposed it on all clergy to be advanced to major orders, on pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and on professors in philosophical and theological seminaries.
The first part of the oath is a strong affirmation of the basic Catholic truths opposed to modernism: the demonstrability of God’s existence by human reason; the value and suitability of miracles and prophecies as criteria of revelation; the historical institution of the Church by Christ; the invariable character of Catholic tradition; the reasonableness and supernaturalness of faith.
The second part of the oath is an expression of interior assent to the decree Lamentabili and the encyclical Pascendi with their contents. Particular modernist errors are singled out for censure and rejection.
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. 1:20), 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.