Oath Against Modernism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic4Jesus

Guest
In 1910 (I think), Pope St. Pius X issued the Oath Against Modernism required to be taken by all priests before their ordinations, promising that they’ll renounce updating the teachings of the Faith to the fad of the day and to be true to the Catholic Faith of all-time. However, after the Second Vatican Council, the Oath Against Modernism was abolished and no priest ever takes the oath anymore prior to ordination anymore. For those who don’t know me, I am a recovering Traditionalist and am currently in the process of leaving my current parish (which is an independent chapel that I grew up in). My independent pastor was giving yet another sermon about how “evil” ther New Mass is and how no Catholic can accept it and be loyal to Catholic tradition, and he also mentioned the Oath Agaisnt Modernsim today and said that the reason that the Oath Against Modernism was abolished is because modernist heretics have taken over the Magisterium since 1965 and are trying to let Modernism flourish throughout the Church. He was also talking about how the Church no longer accepts the Kingship of Jesus Christ because it’s “too offensive to modern man” and it’s “outdated” and since this is the new age, we must now accept the blending of all religions to create a “One World Religion” because modern man can no longer rightfully accept the “outdated” dogma of the Kingship of Jesus Christ. He was also appealing to a sermon given by an SSPX clergyman from the 1970’s and said that he was particularly told by the Holy See everything that I’ve said above. I had a hard time accepting this. Because the main goal of the Church today is promoting and submitting to the Kingship of Jesus Christ and combatting error.
Why was the Oath Against Modernism abolished and what can be said about that dispicable slandering against the current Magisterium?
 
Catholic4Jesus said:
. He was also talking about how the Church no longer accepts the Kingship of Jesus Christ because it’s “too offensive to modern man” and it’s “outdated” and since this is the new age,]
Click to expand...
Ummm…then why do we close out our liturgical year with the Solemnity of Christ the King?
 
Anti-Catholics are prone to making up lies about the Church. This tends to happen whether they’re Traditionalist, Fundamentalist, Atheist, or whatever else.
 
I still want to know why the Church abolished the Oath Against Modernism.
 
It is not abolished. Some ordinations still have the candidates say the oath. It is just not required.
 
Here it is:

"Following Vatican II, the Index and the anti-Modernist oath were abolished (in 1966 and 1967, respectively). Modernism reappeared under the influence of theologians and writers such as Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx, and Charles Curran. These clerics challenged papal and scriptural infallibility, rejected Catholic moral teachings (such as on contraception), and began to promote ideas such as women’s ordination to the priesthood. Over time, these individuals were censured by the Church and prohibited from presenting themselves as Catholic theologians.

“In response to the neo-Modernist crisis, Pope John Paul II issued in 1992 the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the first Church-wide catechism in four hundred years. In 1993 he released the encyclical Veritatis Splendor to correct errors in Catholic moral teaching. In 1994 he issued Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, definitively rejecting the idea of women’s ordination. He is said to be readying an encyclical on sexual morality that is expected to reaffirm the teaching given in Humanae Vitae.”

The late 1960s and 1970s are described as ‘the golden age’ for Catholic dissidents who didn’t like this or that Church teaching.

But Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict did much to turn away the new modernists and illuminate and correct their errors.

Peace,
Ed
 
Catholic4Jesus said:
In 1910 (I think), Pope St. Pius X issued the Oath Against Modernism required to be taken by all priests before their ordinations, promising that they’ll renounce updating the teachings of the Faith to the fad of the day and to be true to the Catholic Faith of all-time. However, after the Second Vatican Council, the Oath Against Modernism was abolished and no priest ever takes the oath anymore prior to ordination anymore. For those who don’t know me, I am a recovering Traditionalist and am currently in the process of leaving my current parish (which is an independent chapel that I grew up in). My independent pastor was giving yet another sermon about how “evil” ther New Mass is and how no Catholic can accept it and be loyal to Catholic tradition, and he also mentioned the Oath Agaisnt Modernsim today and said that the reason that the Oath Against Modernism was abolished is because modernist heretics have taken over the Magisterium since 1965 and are trying to let Modernism flourish throughout the Church. He was also talking about how the Church no longer accepts the Kingship of Jesus Christ because it’s “too offensive to modern man” and it’s “outdated” and since this is the new age, we must now accept the blending of all religions to create a “One World Religion” because modern man can no longer rightfully accept the “outdated” dogma of the Kingship of Jesus Christ. He was also appealing to a sermon given by an SSPX clergyman from the 1970’s and said that he was particularly told by the Holy See everything that I’ve said above. I had a hard time accepting this. Because the main goal of the Church today is promoting and submitting to the Kingship of Jesus Christ and combatting error.
Why was the Oath Against Modernism abolished and what can be said about that dispicable slandering against the current Magisterium?
Click to expand...
Good question, thanks:)
 
Catholic4Jesus said:
I still want to know why the Church abolished the Oath Against Modernism.
Click to expand...
I think part of the issue is that Modernism is not really the threat to the Church anymore. Modernism was a huge issue in the 19th and 20th centuries and led to plenty of scandal, confusion, and heresy regarding the faith.

However, considering we’re living in a “postmodern” world, those issues are the ones most important. I think we’d be stuck in the past to see modernism as the biggest threat to the Church.

So, for some easy reading on postmodernism, check out this wikipedia article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism 🙂
 
Domnall said:
I think part of the issue is that Modernism is not really the threat to the Church anymore. Modernism was a huge issue in the 19th and 20th centuries and led to plenty of scandal, confusion, and heresy regarding the faith.

However, considering we’re living in a “postmodern” world, those issues are the ones most important. I think we’d be stuck in the past to see modernism as the biggest threat to the Church.

So, for some easy reading on postmodernism, check out this wikipedia article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism 🙂
Click to expand...
That is entirely false. Post-modern anything is a fiction. Both Pope John Paul Il and Pope Benedict worked to correct the problems created by Modernism.

Ed
 
🍿 Coincidentally, we’re focusing on Modernism in my History of American Catholicism class. We had to read Pescendi Dominci Gregis {as well as Testem Benevelentiae [sp?]}, so I find this discussion interesting.
 
edwest2 said:
That is entirely false. Post-modern anything is a fiction. Both Pope John Paul Il and Pope Benedict worked to correct the problems created by Modernism.

Ed
Click to expand...
Wait, I’m confused. Are you saying that postmodernism as a movement does not exist? I’m not sure where you’re getting that from.
 
The oath is no longer required, but it was replaced with a broader profession of faith and oath, which has undergone a few revisions since then. It deals with not just Modernism, but the entire deposit of faith.

Here is the current profession of faith and oath of fidelity which is required of all who exercise an office in the name of the Church. Believing in Modernism would violate this profession of faith and oath:

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfoath.htm

Pope Bl. John Paul II also addressed Modernism in Fides et Ratio when discussing erroneous systems that go against faith and/or reason:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

Benedict XVI praised St. Pius X for condemning Modernism here:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20100818_en.html

The Church also still teaches about the Kingship of Christ and does not teach that we need to blend religions–quite the opposite. See for example this from the Catechism on the Kingship:
40.png
CCC:
2105 The duty of offering God genuine worship concerns man both individually and socially. This is "the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral duty of individuals and societies toward the true religion and the one Church of Christ."30 By constantly evangelizing men, the Church works toward enabling them "to infuse the Christian spirit into the mentality and mores, laws and structures of the communities in which [they] live."31 The social duty of Christians is to respect and awaken in each man the love of the true and the good. It requires them to make known the worship of the one true religion which subsists in the Catholic and apostolic Church.32 Christians are called to be the light of the world. Thus, the Church shows forth the kingship of Christ over all creation and in particular over human societies.33
Click to expand...
Anecdotally, I once went to a Red Mass (which is for lawyers and judges) which the local bishop held at a church named for Christ the King, rather than at his cathedral. He flat out told the judges present–which included a Supreme Court Justice who was visiting the state–that they ultimately answer to Christ for every decision they make.

Syncretism has also been consistently opposed. For example, in 1975–when your friend said an SSPX priest said it was being promoted by the Vatican–Paul VI and the synod of bishops summoned at that time promulgated the following:
Paul VI:
Such an exhortation seems to us to be of capital importance, for the presentation of the Gospel message is not an optional contribution for the Church. It is the duty incumbent on her by the command of the Lord Jesus, so that people can believe and be saved. This message is indeed necessary. It is unique. It cannot be replaced. It does not permit either indifference, syncretism or accommodation. It is a question of people’s salvation. It is the beauty of the Revelation that it represents. It brings with it a wisdom that is not of this world. It is able to stir up by itself faith – faith that rests on the power of God.[11] It is truth. It merits having the apostle consecrate to it all his time and all his energies, and to sacrifice for it, if necessary, his own life.
Click to expand...
papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6evan.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top