1168 scripta historica ent interpretations of the facts concerning both the life of the saint and the beginnings of the Congregation of Marian Fathers founded by him. The beliefs of C. Krzyżanowski, MIC, had the great- est influence and they are still dominant, to a large extent, today. While doing his scholarly research, he not only found forgotten or unknown source materials and published them, but he also left his personal stamp on them. One such issue is the matter of the composition of the Oblatio, the understanding of its meaning and the creation of the Congregation of Marian Fathers in the context of St. Stanislaus’ departure from the Piarists. And so, although C. Krzyżanowski does not consider the text of the Oblatio as a canonical formula, but rather, a private matter, yet a bit further in the same introduction to the critical edition of the Oblatio, he also writes that “the candidates making their vows used a formula adapted to the Oblatio of the Servant of God.” Therefore, it had to be a canonical and public act, not a private one.70 We know that the formula of the vows was exactly the same as the Founder’s Oblatio, and the adjustment was only to insert the personal details of the professed71. In this context, the research of F. Smagorowicz, MIC, was important. It was published in two articles: the first in 2003 and the second in 2012. In these articles, he not only reminded us of the oldest tradition of the Congregation, but he also drew attention to the need for a contextual interpretation of the historical source materials. The second thesis of C. Krzyżanowski, MIC, concerns St. Stanislaus’ departure from the Piarists and his founding the Congregation of Marian Fathers. Essentially, it expresses the conviction that he proffered in his introduction to the Oblatio: “We do not know when this new religious vocation appeared. One thing is certain: it was neither the singular reason nor one of many reasons 70 C. Krzyzanowski thus formulated it: “si vincolava di nuovo non canonicamente, [...], privatamente” [he bound himself again non-canonically, [...] privately], Positio, p. 210. 71 Cf. FDR 15. Also cf. Positio, pp. 213, 364.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjI2Mw==