Clergy voluntarily taking Oath Against Modernism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geremia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CatholicOf94 said:
I really dont know how to answer this:o
Im going to say that they are indeed against any changes to tradition, and church practices.
Click to expand...
Apparently, according to a the author of the Ite ad Thomam blog:
Of course there are! There are many of them, especially in those two priestly fraternities. In the FSSP it is part of their ordination ceremonies. In fact, I just witnessed one of them (our parish priest, an FSSP priest) renovate his oath on Wednesday.
Click to expand...
 
Prior to the start of the 3 year investigation of women religious in the US, the plan was that every sister would make The Oath of Fidelity:
*
I. PROFESSION OF FAITH
I, N., with firm faith believe and profess everything that is contained in the Symbol
of faith: namely:
I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that
is seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from
true God, begotten not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things
were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the
power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into
heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to
judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the
Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through
the Prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one
baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the
life of the world to come. Amen.
With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether
written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn
judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as
divinely revealed.
I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the
Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings
which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they
exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these
teachings by a definitive act.
*

An overwhelming majority refused to do so. So, the Apostolic Visitation team, under Cardinal Rode, decided to amend that request:

Do all the sisters who are visited have to make the profession of faith and the oath of fidelity?

No. The sisters who are visited will not be asked to make a public profession of faith and an oath of fidelity. Only the members of the visiting teams will have pronounced an oath of fidelity to the Apostolic See made by those assuming an office to be exercised in the name of the Church. This profession carries with it a special grace which will strengthen the Visitors in their delicate task. It will assist them to faithfully carry out their role in communion with the sound teachings and practice of the Catholic Church and not according to their own private judgment or subjective ideology.

Quote in context: apostolicvisitation.org/en/other/faqs.html
 
If one is a good, dedicated clergyman with a firm dedication to his vocation, then what is the need or reason for taking such an oath?
 
Timothysis said:
If one is a good, dedicated clergyman with a firm dedication to his vocation, then what is the need or reason for taking such an oath?
Click to expand...
The point of an oath is not to brand a particular priest with a seal of approval, my friend! Oaths are to be taken as a public acknowledgment of a clergy’s absolute loyalty to truth, justice, and the papist way. When St. Pius X asked that these self-denying men take the anti-modernist oath, he seems to have meant to convince the laity of orthodoxy and consistency in their shepherds. 🙂 As an example: it is a great responsibility to say that you will hold up the orthodox Roman Catholic Church and all its pronouncements and declarations despite the wild hatred of Humanae Vitae.

Many people will abandon your parish if you make a declaration that doesn’t make them feel good, as it were. The chaff must be separated from the wheat, and modernists who wish to feel good at Mass should just join the Pentecostals. This is the course of the modern world since 1789, after all. We live in an emotions-driven age; for proof, look no further than Franz Liszt, the Romantic who said that musical form must be warped to fit expression and feeling, rather than to conform to traditional ideals (symmetry, & c). The oath exists because Pius X was a great pope who lived at just the time in history when feelings had begun to really dominate private life. It fits perfectly in human society and history, and is sorely needed in this sappy Hollywood world.

You make the oath to reassure the laity who are really attached to the righteous conviction of Christ, and not to modernism (Methodism, et al). This has the added benefit of showing out just who is loyal to truth and tradition, and who is just in it for imagined wonders and miracles. I guarantee that a priest who takes the “Oath Against Modernism” will not celebrate a “Healing Mass” any time soon.

May God bless all priests, I pray.
 
As a minor point of consideration, how many priests/theologians before Vatican 2 took the Oath? And out of that group, how many took it as mere lip-service?
 
Geremia said:
All those at the Vatican II council took it.
Click to expand...
Please read my question again. I appreciate your answer, but it does not answer my question.

As an aside, the question leans towards the rhetorical.
 
Timothysis said:
If one is a good, dedicated clergyman with a firm dedication to his vocation, then what is the need or reason for taking such an oath?
Click to expand...
To ‘put him up to it’ as we say in Ireland. To reassure his Bishop than he wasn’t wasting time, money and an ordination on another Luther. To sort the wheat from the chaff.

You can have lots on interesting opinions but a public oath is a serious business. Like in a court of law. Makes you think about what you’re doing.

Also, it’s a good way, for other people, to know if the fellow you’re taking on is a good, dedicated clergyman.
 
Timothysis said:
If one is a good, dedicated clergyman with a firm dedication to his vocation, then what is the need or reason for taking such an oath?
Click to expand...
From Pope St. Pius X’s introduction to the oath (motu proprio Sacrorum Antistitum):
It seems to Us that it has not been ignored by none of the holy Bishops that the class of men, the modernists, whose personality was described in the encyclical letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis, have not refrained from working in order to disturb the peace of the Church. They have not ceased to attract followers, either, by forming a clandestine group; by these means, they inject in the very veins of the Christian Republic the virus of their doctrine, by editing books and publishing articles in anonymity or with pseudonyms. By reading anew Our aforementioned letter, and considering it carefully, it is clearly seen that this deliberate movement is the work of the men that we described in it, enemies that are the more dangerous the closer they are; that abuse their ministry by offering poisoned nourishment and by surprising the less cautious; by handing a false doctrine in which the sum of all errors is enclosed.
Click to expand...
 
Timothysis said:
If one is a good, dedicated clergyman with a firm dedication to his vocation, then what is the need or reason for taking such an oath?
Click to expand...
Also, you might be interested in this article, which includes an English translation of the introduction to the oath, which gives it its background.
 
Interestingly enough, I know a fellow seminarian who has voluntarily taken the oath in private. Obviously, it’s not like the vows made at ordination, but he made it to God, and he intends to keep it. Another guy intends to ask his bishop if he can make this vow. Perhaps there are also some priests who have sworn it in private or have been allowed to take it by their bishops, although the second option sounds unlikely. Either way, it hasn’t been forgotten!
 
Heh, I’d say the problem isn’t the men who are happy to take such an oath; it’s the ones who wouldn’t be so.
 
Timothysis said:
If one is a good, dedicated clergyman with a firm dedication to his vocation, then what is the need or reason for taking such an oath?
Click to expand...
Read what the has to say about oaths in its discussion of the 2nd commandmentCatechism of the Council of Trent, starting with
Oaths
Click to expand...
Finally, we honour the name of God when we solemnly call upon Him to witness the truth of what we assert This mode of honouring God’s name differs much from those already* enumerated Those means are in their own nature so good, so desirable, that our days and nights could not be more happily or more holily spent than in such practices of piety I will bless the Lord at all times, says David, his praise shall be always in my mouth. On the other hand, although oaths are in themselves good, their frequent use is by no means praiseworthy.
The reason of this difference is that oaths have been instituted only as remedies to human frailty, and a necessary means of establishing the truth of what we assert As it is inexpedient to have recourse to medicine unless, when it becomes necessary, and as its frequent use is harmful; so with regard to oaths, it is not profitable to have recourse to them, unless there is a weighty and just cause; and frequent recurrence to them, far from being advantageous, is on the contrary highly prejudicial Hence the excellent observation of St Chrysostom Oaths were introduced among men, not at the beginning of the world, but long after; when vice had spread far and wide over the earth; when all things were disturbed and universal confusion reigned out; when, to complete human depravity, almost all mankind debased the dignity of their nature by the degrading service of idols. Then at length it was that the custom of oaths was introduced. For the perfidy and wickedness of men was so great that it was with difficulty that anyone could be induced to credit the assertion of another, and they began to call on God as a witness.

Meaning Of An Oath
Click to expand...
Since in explaining this part of the Commandment the chief object is to teach the faithful how to render an oath reverential and holy, it is first to be observed, that to swear, whatever the form of words may be, is nothing else than to call God to witness; thus to say, God is witness, and By God, mean one and the same thing.
To swear by creatures, such as the holy Gospels, the cross, the names or relics of the Saints, and so on, in order to prove our statements, is also to take an oath Of themselves, it is true, such objects give no weight or authority to an oath; it is God Himself who does this, whose divine majesty shines forth in them Hence to swear by the Gospel is to swear by God Himself, whose truth is contained and revealed in the Gospel (This holds equally true with regard to those who swear) by the Saints, who are the temples of God, who believed the truth of His Gospel, were faithful in its observance, and spread it far and wide among the nations and peoples.
This is also true of oaths uttered by way of execration, such as that of St Paul I call God to witness upon my soul. By this form of oath one submits himself to God’s judgment, who is the avenger of falsehood We do not, however, deny that some of these forms may be used without constituting an oath; but even in such cases it will be found useful to observe what has been said with regard to an oath, and to conform exactly to the same rule and standard.

Oaths Are Affirmatory And Promissory
Click to expand...
Oaths are of two kinds The first is an affirmatory oath, and is taken when we religiously affirm anything, past or present. Such was the affirmation of the Apostle in his Epistle to the Galatians: Behold, before God, I lie not. The second kind, to which comminations may be reduced, is called promissory It looks to the future, and is taken when we promise and affirm for certain that such or such a thing will be done Such was the oath of David, who, swearing by the Lord his God, promised to Bethsabee his wife that her son Solomon should be heir to his kingdom and successor to his throne.

Conditions Of A Lawful Oath
Click to expand...
Although to constitute an oath it is sufficient to call God to witness, yet to constitute a holy and just oath many other conditions are required, which should be carefully explained These, as St Jerome observes, are briefly enumerated in the words of Jeremias Thou shalt swear: as the Lord liveth, in truth and in judgment and in justice, words which briefly sum up all the conditions that constitute the perfection of an oath, namely, truth, judgment, justice.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top