Oath Against Modernism. ASAP!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marines
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Marines

Guest
I’m giving a talk soon on Modernism and I had one quesiton: Is the Oath against Modernism still “in effect” or is required of priests, religious, etc?
Thanks,
-Joe
 
Well

dailycatholic.org/oathvmod.htm

The oath, as I understand it, has been removed. Not that priests should be modernists, but there is no oath. Of course, priests that took it are still required to uphold the oath.

As I understand it, Paul VI did away with it. I understand that it’s not required, and I think it’s Paul VI that made that change.

Rob
 
If they had taken the Oath, they would not have been able to embrace the Novus Ordo Mass. Pope Paul VI knew that and paved the way.
 
I am sure it wasn’t removed to be able to embrace the Novus Ordo Mass.

We can all dream up ways to denigrate the new Mass but done properly there is nothing to complain about, what we should complain about is the abuses that have occured and how to bring us back to sanity.

Anyone have a good reason why it was abolished? I believe it probably was under pressure from progressives so that they could twist a proper implementation of Vatican II, to the spirit of Vatican II. Pope Paul had a lot of pressure to try and keep the Church from getting off track and probably had to make changes such as removing the oath, (which doesn’t change the faith) to preserve unity. Of course not having to state the oath doesn’t make it correct to hold those ideas it just probably appeased the progressives who were uncomfortable saying it.

God Bless
Scylla
 
scylla said:
I am sure it wasn’t removed to be able to embrace the Novus Ordo Mass.

We can all dream up ways to denigrate the new Mass but done properly there is nothing to complain about, what we should complain about is the abuses that have occured and how to bring us back to sanity.

Anyone have a good reason why it was abolished? I believe it probably was under pressure from progressives so that they could twist a proper implementation of Vatican II, to the spirit of Vatican II. Pope Paul had a lot of pressure to try and keep the Church from getting off track and probably had to make changes such as removing the oath, (which doesn’t change the faith) to preserve unity. Of course not having to state the oath doesn’t make it correct to hold those ideas it just probably appeased the progressives who were uncomfortable saying it.

God Bless
Scylla
Click to expand...
Well said my thoughts exactly.🤷
 
The issue was not really pressure from modernists as maybe too much optimism. One of the unfortunate side effects of the necessary medicine against modernism and rationalism was a kind of paranoia similar to the anti-Communist McCarthyism in the USA. Under St. Pius X there was even a spy ring headed up by Msgr. Umberto Benigni called the Sodalitium Pianum in order to find and catch modernist priests. It was abolished by Pope Benedict XV. We see in the pontificate of Pius XII a move to leave behind that kind paranoia that was hindering authentic doctrinal development and theological study–his encyclical on Scripture study Divino Afflante shows this re-emergence and a general effort to spur the progress of theological study once again (authentic progress and development, not the modernist perversion of it–Pius XII uses the phrase “progress of sacred doctrine.”) We also see this in other encyclicals, as well as warnings not to stray from the right path in these studies.

This continued under the pontificate of Bl. John XXIII and also with the Second Vatican Council. I think in the optimism and excitement, Pope Paul VI wanted to continue the work of his predecessors in creating a less fearful atmosphere in order to foster the renewal and growth expected to come from the Council’s work. That is why I think a new oath was instituted. The oath was abolished for the same reason the Sodalitium Pianum was abolished–for better or worse.
 
Genesis315 said:
The issue was not really pressure from modernists as maybe too much optimism. One of the unfortunate side effects of the necessary medicine against modernism and rationalism was a kind of paranoia similar to the anti-Communist McCarthyism in the USA. Under St. Pius X there was even a spy ring headed up by Msgr. Umberto Benigni called the Sodalitium Pianum in order to find and catch modernist priests. It was abolished by Pope Benedict XV. We see in the pontificate of Pius XII a move to leave behind that kind paranoia that was hindering authentic doctrinal development and theological study
Click to expand...
Paranoia that was hindering authentic doctrinal develpement, or prudence to protect the faith from the errors of the modernists?

I think Pope St. Pius X - one of only two canonized saints in the past 700 years (I think 700) - new what he was doing.
 
Genesis315 said:
Pope Paul VI wanted to continue the work of his predecessors in creating a less fearful atmosphere in order to foster the renewal and growth expected to come from the Council’s work. That is why I think a new oath was instituted. The oath was abolished for the same reason the Sodalitium Pianum was abolished–for better or worse.
Click to expand...
What work of the Council are you referring to, the Constitution on the Liturgy? Can you tell me who wrote the Constitution?
 
Silver_Thread said:
If they had taken the Oath, they would not have been able to embrace the Novus Ordo Mass. Pope Paul VI knew that and paved the way.
Click to expand...
Sure said:
Modernism is a heresy. Are you insinuating that the Mass is heretical?
Click to expand...
Pax_et_Caritas said:
Sure,

What is the herersy of modernism?
Click to expand...
Please keep the thread on topic. The OP is asking a specific question:
Is the Oath against Modernism still “in effect” or is required of priests, religious, etc?
Click to expand...
Speculation on the status of the NO, the history and definition of modernism, and/or speculations on Paul VI are outside the bounds of this topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top