Clergy voluntarily taking Oath Against Modernism?

[Adeodatus]

For all those wondering why Pope St. Pius X’s Oath Against Modernism was revoked in the '60s, would you not consider Pope John Paul II’s motu proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem a sort of “2nd Oath”? Thanks

In what specifically do you see a similarity?

 

[Geremia]

In what specifically do you see a similarity?

Because it adds more from the Cogregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Oath of Fidelity (1998) and to the Code of Canon Law.

1. The second paragraph [of the Oath of Fidelity], however, which states “I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals,” has no corresponding canon in the Codes of the Catholic Church. This second paragraph of the *Profession of faith *is of utmost importance since it refers to truths that are necessarily connected to divine revelation. These truths, in the investigation of Catholic doctrine, illustrate the Divine Spirit’s particular inspiration for the Church’s deeper understanding of a truth concerning faith and morals, with which they are connected either for historical reasons or by a logical relationship.

Perhaps a fruitful discussion here would be the simalarities and differences between the CDF’s “Oath of Fidelity” and Pope St. Pius X’s “Oath Against Modernism.”

 

[otjm]

Because it adds more from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Oath of Fidelity (1998) and to the Code of Canon Law.Perhaps a fruitful discussion here would be the similarities and differences between the CDF’s “Oath of Fidelity” and Pope St. Pius X’s “Oath Against Modernism.”

It might make for an interesting intellectual discussion. However, the same problem exists with it as existed with the original oath against Modernism: the question of whether or not it will actually make a difference.

The original oath would appear to have had little or no effect; the problems that exploded within the Church in the late 1960’s should be ample proof that those taking it for decades before gave it mere lip service, if it was even required of them in actuality.

People often lay blame for the chaos on Vatican 2, seemingly missing the point that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in what she does. However, that guidance did not seem to make it down the the seminary level, nor the level of theologians, as can be seen by subsequent courses of action on the parish level. And while it would be simplistic to blame all on Modernism (a term I am loath to use as it is so difficult to define with any useful clarity), at the same time it was the loss of a sense of absoluteness of truth, and Truth that lead to the chaos.

So, a discussion can be had of the differences and similarities. The real question is, will it make a bigger difference than the original oath did; or are there other factors that may make that difference?

 

[Geremia]

It might make for an interesting intellectual discussion. However, the same problem exists with it as existed with the original oath against Modernism: the question of whether or not it will actually make a difference.

That is a good point. Everyone at Vatican II took it.

In fact, a total disregard for the anti-Modernist efforts of Pope St. Pius X is now the norm in the post-Conciliar Church. It has come to the point where priests such as Father Donald Cozzens, author of the pro-homosexual book The Changing Face of the Catholic Priesthood, openly denigrates the Oath Against Modernism. This happened in an October 24, 2002 National Public Radio interview, during which the Oath was briefly discussed. Father Cozzens, speaking of himself and his confreres, said on the air:
“We compromised and we signed the Oath. We who were to be preachers of the truth, men who were to be trusted, men whose word was all-important, we began our priesthood with an Oath that we really didn’t be*lieve.”** (from here)

 

[otjm]

That is a good point. Everyone at Vatican II took it.

More to the point, everyone before Vatican 2 took it. The problems we had after Vatican 2 didn’t start with the Council. They started decades and decades before.

And you might want to be a tad bit careful of what you quote. “Those who swore this sacred Oath and then promoted the modern program of Vatican II, including the Council’s new ecumenism and religious liberty, have shown themselves unfaithful to the Oath they swore solemnly before God.” That is about as close as anyone can come to a repudiation of Vatican 2 without saying so, and the Church has most definitely not repudiated it - in spite of John Vennari’s comments. anyone who wants to go down that path is fast into a “remnant Church” position, which leaves pretty much the Pope, the Curia, and the world’s bishops out of the Church. Which in turn borders on a sede position.

 

[Adeodatus]

Unfortunately, something like the Anti-Modernist Oath only has any force if the Church is williing to excommunicate and defrock heretical priests. The Church is obviously not willing to do so.

So a Modernist heretic could swear the oath and then go about the business of undermining God’s Church. What does the Modernist care that he lied? He’s a Modernist. Heretics by definition are enemies of the truth.

If recent history is to teach us anything, it’s that “the honor system” is an insufficient safeguard against clerical misconduct.

 

[otjm]

Unfortunately, something like the Anti-Modernist Oath only has any force if the Church is williing to excommunicate and defrock heretical priests. The Church is obviously not willing to do so.

So a Modernist heretic could swear the oath and then go about the business of undermining God’s Church. What does the Modernist care that he lied? He’s a Modernist. Heretics by definition are enemies of the truth.

If recent history is to teach us anything, it’s that “the honor system” is an insufficient safeguard against clerical misconduct.

However, the Church never went around tossing out excommunications like candy. So it would appear that they have a different approach to the matters.

I would suspect there will be a great deal of correction, but it will not take place by force or demand. The priests, nuns, and theologians who have wanted to reinvent the Church are either dying out (e.g. the nuns) or are simply being replaced by people who do not have the agenda(s) of their predecessors. The group of priests, often referred to as “John Paul 2” priests are coming in for different reasons than their predecessors; they have a far different agenda, and they will eventually get the Church back on track. The problems the Church has today did not start overnight, and the corrections will not be rapid. But they are occurring.