Oath Against Modernism

[thursday63]

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

 

[Lormar]

No.

Maybe the poster Filioque can help you. He is knowledgeable about this type of stuff.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I think that it would be an excellent idea to have an “Oath Against Modernism”, perhaps modified for our current threats. It is no secret that many in the Church embraced Modernism in the 1960’s-70’s.

 

[JamesTheJust]

No idea. We need it again now, though, what with abuse and Modernism running rampant in the Church today.

 

[edwest2]

I think that it would be an excellent idea to have an “Oath Against Modernism”, perhaps modified for our current threats. It is no secret that many in the Church embraced Modernism in the 1960’s-70’s.

Can you provide a reference for your statement? Yes, there were dissidents in the Church during that time period that were causing problems. however, they have or are dying out and the Church is being steered back on course now. There would be no need to change the original Oath.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TimothyH]

The Oath Against Modernism was a response to the Edinburgh Missionary Conference held June 14 to 23, 1910 and the Ecumenical movement between non-Catholic Churches in the late 19th and early 20th century out of which the council grew. The 1910 council was a huge event in terms of news coverage and importance to many Protestant and non-denominational Churches at the time. The movement in general and the 1910 conference in particular resulted in the formation of the World Council of Churches in 1948.

It is not incorrect to think of the 1910 conference as similar to a Council of the Catholic Church like Trent or Vatican II. It is also not incorrect to think of the 1910 council and the World Council of Churches which grew out of it as similar to the League of Nations. The idea of a league of nations was being talked about prior to World War I and so was a “league of Christian Churches.” The 1910 conference was the first real attempt at such a body. 1200 delegates met in Scottland. It was huge news all over the globe.

Among other things, the movement in general and the 1910 council in particular proposed to develop and understand doctrine. The nature of contraception was already being talked about among Protestant Churches as were other points of teaching. The Oath against Modernism fought the attempts of the movement and council to proclaim doctrine and you can see the assertion of the Church that it alone is singularly authoritative as the voice of Christ in the language of the oath…

***I . . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.

I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time. ***

The “errors of this day” are the teachings which came out of the Ecumenical Movement, the “Faith and Order Movement”, the “Life and Work Movement” and the 1910 council. The oath goes on to talk about the “supernatural origin of Catholic tradition” and “the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever.”

The Catholic Church today has observers who go to World Council of Churches events although the Catholic Church itself is not a full member. Whatever anyone thinks of the World Council of Churches, Catholic participation in their events, or ecumenical dialog in general, the fact is that the Catholic Church has chosen dialog rather than confrontation and oaths.

But the oath itself was a response to mass organization of non-Catholic Churches and the 1910 council in Scottland to which Catholics were not invited. There is a tension between seeking unity and rejecting false teaching. Some say that the Church in the early 20th century was too focused on rejecting false teaching and others say that the Church today is too focused on unity. The argument will continue. I won’t get into it. I’m just pointing out why the oath was put in place and why it went away. The oath was a specific response to a specific historical event, the 1910 council, which the Church saw as a very real threat to its Apostolic Authority and mission to safeguard truth.

Here are a few links…

WCC as it exists today: oikoumene.org/en
1910 World Missionary Conference on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinburgh_Missionary_Conference
Oath Against Modernism: papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

-Tim-

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Thanks Tim, very interesting!!

 

[GratefulFred]

Thanks, Tim. I learned something new from you today.

Dialogue is usually better than confrontation when discussing sensitive issues such as our proper relationship with God.

People walked away from Christ Himself. Christ told His Apostles to go and teach and if they reject you, shake the dust off and teach elsewhere. ACTS tells of the first council that decided the circumcision issue. Heresies flair up all the time. The Confraternity of the Doctrine of Faith stays busy.

It is so easy to misunderstand. We do need the guidance of the Holy Spirit as provided by God through Christ Himself.

Speaking the truth in the spirit of Love is better than confrontation.

 

[bben15]

Tim has provided an excellent answer. Great job, Tim.

I want to add a few things though:

The term “Modernism” is often thrown around by traditionalists today out of context. In reality, the heresy of Modernism is a set of positions condemned by Pope Pius X.

It is good the Holy Ghost waited until the 60s to open the Second Vatican Council, and the Holy Ghost was right in doing this: In the 20s and 30s, many bishops adhered to Modernism. If the Second Vatican Council was called at that time, it would have been a disaster for the Church. Modernism was mostly gone by 1962, so it was better to have the Council at that time than earlier. To those who wonder why the Council was “so overdue,” this is the reason why.

The more correct term for the rejection of doctrine solely because “it doesn’t agree with the times” is Liberalism.

Also, to note, John Paul II mandated a new oath in the 80s, one that makes the to-be-ordained swear that all Catholic doctrine is true and correct.

I hope that helps.

 

[JamesTheJust]

I have now learned two new things today. Thanks, Ben and Tim!

 

[TimothyH]

Thanks all for your kind responses.

Just to follow-up… In discussing the faith, many are quick cite documents of the Church as authoritative. Even ancient documents are cited endlessly. I wish people weren’t so quick to do so.

Many Church documents were products of their time created to address specific issues of the time and specific events in history. These documents surely contain unambiguous truths which will never change but we are too quick to apply them to every situation, too quick to bind Popes and bishops by their literal interpretation apart from the specific issue they were intended to address, and we can quote them faster than an Alabama country preacher can quote verses from the Bible. The Oath Against Modernism is no exception.

Also, to note, John Paul II mandated a new oath in the 80s, one that makes the to-be-ordained swear that all Catholic doctrine is true and correct.

That’s right. Thanks. I had forgotten about this. The text of the oath is at ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfoath.htm.

My own personal editorial response to the whole matter is that we should always renew our baptismal promises. St. Louis de Montfort said that the biggest error made by Catholic Christians is that they forget their baptismal promises. This is why I think it is so important to go to the Easter Vigil, and why I love watching baptisms. People look at me like I have three heads when I say “I do” to the questions being asked of the parents and godparents at a baptism. I’ve knelt at a baptism and answered “I do” to the questions. I don’t care.

-Tim-

 

[ProVobis]

I think that it would be an excellent idea to have an “Oath Against Modernism”, perhaps modified for our current threats. It is no secret that many in the Church embraced Modernism in the 1960’s-70’s.

You mean let’s modernize the Oath against Modernism?

 

[otjm]

The term “Modernism” is often thrown around by traditionalists today out of context. In reality, the heresy of Modernism is a set of positions condemned by Pope Pius X.

The more correct term for the rejection of doctrine solely because “it doesn’t agree with the times” is Liberalism.

It also helps to note that there are several other “isms” around and at play in the world. I have seen the term Modernism used as the reason that so many orders of sisters went over the cliff. That was far more the influence of feminism run amok than any thought of Modernism.

It is tiresome to see an issue that started with the Enlightenment in the mid 1600’s trotted out as if it were the explanation of anything and everything that someone doesn’t like (and often fails to understand). It is far easier to raise a rallying cry with a code word than it is to sit down and intellectually critique a matter. The sweeping condemnation with one word, as if it answered all questions, is far easier.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Can you provide a reference for your statement? Yes, there were dissidents in the Church during that time period that were causing problems. however, they have or are dying out and the Church is being steered back on course now. There would be no need to change the original Oath.

Peace,
Ed

Ed, I wish I shared your confidence that liberalism in the Church is rapidly disappearing! I hope that you are correct.

 

[edwest2]

Ed, I wish I shared your confidence that liberalism in the Church is rapidly disappearing! I hope that you are correct.

Pope Francis is doing a great job. As did Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II. They, in particular, put on the brakes. Pope Francis is calling all Catholics back to the basics. Not to mention the religious, like priests. The Church goes by God’s timetable.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rich_C]

Thanks all for your kind responses.

Just to follow-up… In discussing the faith, many are quick cite documents of the Church as authoritative. Even ancient documents are cited endlessly. I wish people weren’t so quick to do so.

Many Church documents were products of their time created to address specific issues of the time and specific events in history. These documents surely contain unambiguous truths which will never change but we are too quick to apply them to every situation, too quick to bind Popes and bishops by their literal interpretation apart from the specific issue they were intended to address, and we can quote them faster than an Alabama country preacher can quote verses from the Bible. The Oath Against Modernism is no exception.​

You are on fire here!

Actually, someone pointed out to me that a lot of the documents from Vatican II fit what you said above (bold mine). Think of the document on mass communication, written before most people had color TV at home. I expect in three generations we’ll only remember one or two points from the council, like we only remember papal infallibility from Vatican I.

 

[ProVobis]

Many Church documents were products of their time created to address specific issues of the time and specific events in history. These documents surely contain unambiguous truths which will never change but we are too quick to apply them to every situation, too quick to bind Popes and bishops by their literal interpretation apart from the specific issue they were intended to address, and we can quote them faster than an Alabama country preacher can quote verses from the Bible.

Well, there is still value in St. Paul’s Epistles, even though many don’t like to hear much of it. Why else have them?

The thing is we need to read all the Church documents properly. The fact is that certain documents are labelled as dogmatic (creed) or doctrinal. In fact, two of Vatican II documents are specified as dogmatic. These are deemed to be timeless and unchangeable. Now it is true some of the documents, especially Trent, have built-in disciplines, such as anathemas and excommunications which can change, be lifted, reimposed, etc. However, that shouldn’t change the underlying doctrines. (Or wisdom, for that matter.)

 

[kozlosap]

Would someone please deliniate for me just exactly what issues we are writing about when the term “modernism” used? Is it purely Church dogma, or is it other things also? I just want to make sure that when I read everyone’s quite thoughtful and researched responses, that I’m on the same page!!!

 

[JamesTheJust]

Would someone please deliniate for me just exactly what issues we are writing about when the term “modernism” used? Is it purely Church dogma, or is it other things also? I just want to make sure that when I read everyone’s quite thoughtful and researched responses, that I’m on the same page!!!

Modernism was a heresy most prominent in the early 20th century, which basically posited that Catholic doctrine needed to be re-interpreted. Modernists insisted that the Catholicism of the day was inconsistent with the Catholicism of the Early Church Fathers, which is of course false. I do not recall that Modernists cared much for the disciplinary rubrics and regulations, either.

 

[Rich_C]

Would someone please deliniate for me just exactly what issues we are writing about when the term “modernism” used? Is it purely Church dogma, or is it other things also? I just want to make sure that when I read everyone’s quite thoughtful and researched responses, that I’m on the same page!!!

Basically if you’ve ever heard a priest say we don’t know if Jesus was really God but he sure was swell… that’s red flag.

If you want the whole answer, here is the vatican’s encyclical:

**PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS

ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X
ON THE DOCTRINES
OF THE MODERNISTS**

To the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops
and other Local Ordinaries in Peace
and Communion with the Apostolic See.

Venerable Brethren, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

The office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ, namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body; for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things” (Acts xx. 30), “vain talkers and seducers” (Tit. i. 10), “erring and driving into error” (2 Tim. iii. 13). Still it must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly, who are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ’s kingdom itself. Wherefore We may no longer be silent, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be attributed to forgetfulness of Our office.

Gravity of the Situation

1. That We make no delay in this matter is rendered necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies; they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous, the less conspicuously they appear. We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man…

Full text:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html