Oath Against Modernism

[kozlosap]

Thanks everyone! I had read some about the Modernism Movement in the late 19th Century.

 

[edwest2]

Modernists exist today. It was predicted that it would return and it has. The Oath needs to return for the same reason - unchanged.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TimothyH]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[edwest2]

I know reality when I see it.

Peace

Ed

 

[HelenRose]

It think the credo is oath enough.

 

[ready]

Does anyone know what the rationale was for abolishing the Oath Against Modernism of Pope St Pius X?

If one reads Pope St. Pius X’s Pascenci Dominici Gregis (about Modernism), one sees the urgency for such an oath. Modernism had been creeping in the Church as early as when Pope St. Pius X wrote his encyclical, even back to the French Revolution … it still exists in the Conciliar Church, Pascendi shows it. God bless you.

 

[TimothyH]

If one reads Pope St. Pius X’s Pascenci Dominici Gregis (about Modernism), one sees the urgency for such an oath. Modernism had been creeping in the Church as early as when Pope St. Pius X wrote his encyclical, even back to the French Revolution … it still exists in the Conciliar Church, Pascendi shows it. God bless you.

You answered a question which wasn’t asked. thursday63 asked why it was abolished, not why it was instituted.

I would also be interested in knowing the reason why the Church discontinued the oath. Was there ever a statement?

-Tim-

 

[edwest2]

Quoting from an old post:

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

And a few words from Pope Paul VI:

papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6evan.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[otjm]

I know reality when I see it.

Peace

Ed

You may know reality when you see it, but that does not guarantee that you correctly name it. Read what John Paul 2 wrote in Fides et Ratio and you will find a list of issues far beyond a simplistic naming of “Modernism”. Modernism gets one or two sentences, and those delineate the sources of Modernism.

 

[otjm]

You answered a question which wasn’t asked. thursday63 asked why it was abolished, not why it was instituted.

I would also be interested in knowing the reason why the Church discontinued the oath. Was there ever a statement?

Tim-

I can’t give an answer from any document of statement, but consider this: if all priests were required to take the oath, what good did it do, if Modernism is or has been so allegedly widespread?

Answer: none.

Why keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? That is a definition of insanity. Something, other than some oath, was needed. The oath obviously was not supplying it.

 

[edwest2]

I can’t give an answer from any document of statement, but consider this: if all priests were required to take the oath, what good did it do, if Modernism is or has been so allegedly widespread?

Answer: none.

Why keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? That is a definition of insanity. Something, other than some oath, was needed. The oath obviously was not supplying it.

That is the definition of reality. Modernism existed then and it exists today. Taking such an oath, and continuing to defend it, shows that the Church has enemies inside and outside of it. Those who are called to serve God must declare their opposition to the “change” I keep reading about here. They cannot afford to ignore it and neither can the laity.

Since robbery goes back to antiquity, would it be alright for the police to ignore it because it does no good? Of course not. The police don’t catch all robbers but the message is clear: “since you - the robber - will never stop, we will not lessen our efforts either.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[otjm]

That is the definition of reality. Modernism existed then and it exists today. Taking such an oath, and continuing to defend it, shows that the Church has enemies inside and outside of it. Those who are called to serve God must declare their opposition to the “change” I keep reading about here. They cannot afford to ignore it and neither can the laity.

Since robbery goes back to antiquity, would it be alright for the police to ignore it because it does no good? Of course not. The police don’t catch all robbers but the message is clear: “since you - the robber - will never stop, we will not lessen our efforts either.”

Peace,
Ed

No, pretty much Modernism does not exist today; what was Modernism 100 years ago has morphed into any number of other isms. Modernism is just a rallying code word used as a shortcut to problems which most people do not have the training to identify clearly, adequately and articulately. As noted, you referenced John Paul 2’s Ratio et Fides. It reads like a mini class for a Masters program. John Paul, who had a PhD in both Philosophy and Theology, simply references it in passing, noting three underlying isms. He then goes on to note a large number of isms since then, which in turn go down any number of rabbit holes. If you want to see what is at play currently, then read the whole article. You will note there that it is not an article on Modernism; it is an article detailing all of the other isms which are currently in play.

It is a bit akin, but not closely, to calling a pickpocket a robber - they both took something from someone. In law, the two acts are not the same.

You may well see problems within the Church; but they do not fit under some blanket amorphous title of Modernism. They each have their name, they each have their history, and they are each a problem, but they are not all identical nor all from the same source; in many cases they are from disparate sources.

 

[Fransea]

What I gather from reading this forum…

An Oath Against Modernism could be construed as anything. Electric lights are “modern”, cars are “Modern”, the internet, computers, etc. are are modern inventions.

Are we to reject ALL moderism. Don’t think so. But is that what being discussed when “modernism” is being referred to.

I guess it could also be construed that Jesus himself was a moderist. He did bring the new covenant to believers, did he not. His teaching was a “novel” idea, was it not?

Who are we to say what moderism is dangerous…We have the authority of the church to define that. But to me, that is the whole theory behind the teaching of the SSPX…since it was Pius X who endorsed the “oath”. Are we to believe the Pope or the “authority” of the SSPX. I for one go with the Pope.

Different circumstances all throughout the years have had to be dealth with. We have followed the teachings of the church to “explain”. Why are we, now, trying to redfine what the church teaches as truth.

Are we to follow the apostles’ teaching, or to go off in different directions and follow anything anyone else teaches. The "mass of all times’, my friends doesn’t necessarily mean the mass of ALL times. Time changes, God doesn’t.

If God didn’t want us to grow in the faith and believe His word, would He have given us the God given ability to discern truth from lies. God gave man a brain and I think He means for us to use it.

I have gotten away from this site for a long time BECAUSE of all the controversy. It seems to me that the Traditionlist view is to keep “trying” to verify that they are right and everyone else is wrong. It’s hard to admit you’ve been duped.

Only God really knows who is right and wrong. It is NOT God’s way to continue in controversy. If anyone is ever in a “church” of any type, and that priest/preacher/whatever starts teaching/preaching hate, he is not of God. We do not go the church to learn hate.

God is Love.

 

[edwest2]

Interesting comments. First, and this is not going to stop, people here and elsewhere argue that the church needs to change, it needs top get rid of ‘outdated’ teachings, it needs to do what we want it to do do because we live in modern times (as opposed to two weeks ago). That is the issue and has been since shortly after the Church was founded.

The Church is not the secular world. Yes, it needs to listen to what the secular world is talking about, but aside from clarifying itself, the Church will not change Her Teachings. But we still get womenpriests, the Church should stop teaching this or that, or accept this or that. We get that here.

Peace,
Ed