Oath against modernism.

[Missa_Solemnis]

It was abolished by Paul VI - who has been declared Venerable​

Maybe Rome should be informed that a man who has been declared Venerable - a Pope, no less - was a Modernist.

Being different from Pius X does not constitute Modernism - if the Church were to be stuck in the year 1910 for the next thousand billion centuries (give or take a few), it would be utterly useless at sharing the Gospel of Christ with any later generation; & all times have their own challenges, difficulties, & so on. The problems of 1910 are not those of 2006, so it makes no sense to insist that what was useful then, has to be applicable now. Fossilising the Church so that it never moves beyond this or that era isn’t fidelity, but stagnation.

Novelty =/= error - St. Paul was “novel” 1950 years ago - today’s “traditionalists” would have hated the Vulgate, monasticism, the use of Aristotle in theology; all of these were new, modern, novel, untraditional, in their time. as for Jesus - He didn’t go around with a halo: He was not a “traditionalist” at all. But He was very novel. ##

Pius IX is also on the road to Sainthood…dispite his anti-semitism (something that there is definite proof of) Even St. Pius V was a clear anti-semite.

The personal choices of a Pope are not justified because of their personal piety.

Paul VI, I believe, was given that title due to his staunch and steadfast faith concerning moral issues (such as birth control) Such recognition is something he rightfully deserves. But that does not make the undoing of Church tradition okay.

If the Oath Against Modernism was removed…theres nothing truly wrong with it literally.

But we must ask ourselves…why was it removed?
What good could it do in removing an oath that banned heresy?

And it is of course coincidental that in a time of rampant modernism, heresy, and diluted Catholicism…the best course of action was removing what little links to tradition we actually have.

 

[AJV]

Pius IX is also on the road to Sainthood…dispite his anti-semitism (something that there is definite proof of) Even St. Pius V was a clear anti-semite.

The personal choices of a Pope are not justified because of their personal piety.

Paul VI, I believe, was given that title due to his staunch and steadfast faith concerning moral issues (such as birth control) Such recognition is something he rightfully deserves. But that does not make the undoing of Church tradition okay.

If the Oath Against Modernism was removed…theres nothing truly wrong with it literally.

But we must ask ourselves…why was it removed?
What good could it do in removing an oath that banned heresy?

And it is of course coincidental that in a time of rampant modernism, heresy, and diluted Catholicism…the best course of action was removing what little links to tradition we actually have.

But wouldn’t the most of this behaviour have come from priests and professors who would have taken the oath? After all, they were the majority for at least 8 years:'67-'75.

Secondly, one could very well say that the new Profession deos indeed still cover it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

And it is of course coincidental that in a time of rampant modernism, heresy, and diluted Catholicism…the best course of action was removing what little links to tradition we actually have.

What rubbish, maintaining that the oath, promulgated by a twentieth century pope, is more “traditional” than the Creeds. A little more academic rigor is called for, I think, than is being provided in this assertion.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

What rubbish, maintaining that the oath, promulgated by a twentieth century pope, is more “traditional” than the Creeds. A little more academic rigor is called for, I think, than is being provided in this assertion.

When did I say that?

What your suggesting (intentional or not) is that ‘unless’ priests swear an Oath based on the Creeds… they somehow dont believe in them?

All the modernists of that time and those here today believe in the Creeds…Creating an oath about the Creeds is what was irrelevant and useless.

The Creeds were accepted…thats that. It would be pointless ceremony to make a seminarian after undergoing extensive studies swear an oath to uphold something he was taught in grade school.

Modernism was an issue that was causing and has caused destruction in the Church at the highest and most learned levels.

Removing that Oath, is not a attack on the Oath itself, nor do I assert that the Oath is some ancient traditional practice.

Rather…the act of removing the Oath and replacing it with beliefs even most Protestants hold…is a great attack on the way Tradition works in general.

Its not like the Oath had a USDA approved 100% Certified Organic tradition label.

All I was saying is that the act of removing it…was for an agenda not in-line with the Holy man that introduced it…as well as the Popes before him.

And the fruits of this agenda of modernism that has taken the Church is evident for all to see.

It is by their fruits that you will know them…and in that case heck Paul VI was not a very good gardener.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

When did I say that?

What your suggesting (intentional or not) is that ‘unless’ priests swear an Oath based on the Creeds… they somehow dont believe in them? **Nope, I’m saying that the oath the Church calls on them to make is sufficient. **

All the modernists of that time and those here today believe in the Creeds…Creating an oath about the Creeds is what was irrelevant and useless. **Please, that’s very naive. They could swear it, the whole time not believing it, either the Creeds or the Oath. **

Modernism was an issue that was causing and has caused destruction in the Church at the highest and most learned levels.

Rather…the act of removing the Oath and replacing it with beliefs even most Protestants hold…is a great attack on the way Tradition works in general. **If you took out all mention of the pope, most protestants I know would be fine with the oath. **

Its not like the Oath had a USDA approved 100% Certified Organic tradition label.

All I was saying is that the act of removing it…was for an agenda not in-line with the Holy man that introduced it…as well as the Popes before him. **The popes before him didn’t have the oath. It’s hardly a reflection on them. **

And the fruits of this agenda of modernism that has taken the Church is evident for all to see. **If you’re talking about western Europe and America, then I’d agree. But the swearing of the oath is, as AJV pointed out, something that appears to have been gotten around by those who lead the leftist movement in the Church. All of those people were born and raised in the Pre-Vatican II Church, before Paul VI. **

It is by their fruits that you will know them…and in that case heck Paul VI was not a very good gardener.

Again, a high school students sits in judgement on the Vicar of Christ on earth. Honestly.

You still don’t know what modernism is if you think it’s invaded the magisterium of the Church. AND:

“And it is of course coincidental that in a time of rampant modernism, heresy, and diluted Catholicism…the best course of action was removing what little links to tradition we actually have.” The creeds are a little more “traditional,” but since “traditionalists” throw the term “modernism” around with little understanding of what the Church actually teaches it to be, I don’t suppose they understand “tradition” very well, either.

 

[AJV]

When did I say that?

What your suggesting (intentional or not) is that ‘unless’ priests swear an Oath based on the Creeds… they somehow dont believe in them?

All the modernists of that time and those here today believe in the Creeds…Creating an oath about the Creeds is what was irrelevant and useless.

The Creeds were accepted…thats that. It would be pointless ceremony to make a seminarian after undergoing extensive studies swear an oath to uphold something he was taught in grade school.

No, not necessarily. Modernism is indeed opposed at times to the truths of the Creed.

I don’t know whether you have heard about James Pike, a bishop in the Protestant ECUSA, who denied such truths including the Virgin Birth, the Ascension, the atonement, and so forth, which in turn are related to matters of rationalims and biblical interpetation. Anyhow, one day somehow asked him how he could do that and sing the Creed every Sunday. His answer was that he could very well sing it because it was “a culturally relative product of the ancient Church”. (forgive the inexact quote- its from memory, but thats more or less what he said)

The Profession of Faith also includes the 3 latter paragraphs binding the person to the teachings of the Church on faith and morals, the written and unwritten Tradition and submission to the teachings of the Pope or the College of Bishops. I don’t think modernists believe in those either.

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

Again, a high school students sits in judgement on the Vicar of Christ on earth. Honestly.

You still don’t know what modernism is if you think it’s invaded the magisterium of the Church. AND:

“And it is of course coincidental that in a time of rampant modernism, heresy, and diluted Catholicism…the best course of action was removing what little links to tradition we actually have.” The creeds are a little more “traditional,” but since “traditionalists” throw the term “modernism” around with little understanding of what the Church actually teaches it to be, I don’t suppose they understand “tradition” very well, either.

My goodness…I finish my reply to your attack on my age on the other thread…only to find it repeated here.

Im sorry sir but this has become very offensive…and the tone of this debate on both sides has lost any resemblence to Christian discussion.

Im not going to ask you to apologize for your comments…nor do I expect you to even feel sorry for them.

But this constant mention of my “inferior” age is getting on my nerves, is uncharitable, rude, and totally uncalled for.

I hope you do not treat everyone that is in some way inferior (if age really is an inferiority) to you…with so much disrespect and indignity.

Goodnight…
I will pray for you…

 

[AJV]

My goodness…I finish my reply to your attack on my age on the other thread…only to find it repeated here.

Im sorry sir but this has become very offensive…and the tone of this debate on both sides has lost any resemblence to Christian discussion.

Im not going to ask you to apologize for your comments…nor do I expect you to even feel sorry for them.

But this constant mention of my “inferior” age is getting on my nerves, is uncharitable, rude, and totally uncalled for.

I hope you do not treat everyone that is in some way inferior (if age really is an inferiority) to you…with so much disrespect and indignity.

Goodnight…
I will pray for you…

 

[JKirkLVNV]

My goodness…I finish my reply to your attack on my age on the other thread…only to find it repeated here.

Im sorry sir but this has become very offensive…and the tone of this debate on both sides has lost any resemblence to Christian discussion.

Im not going to ask you to apologize for your comments…nor do I expect you to even feel sorry for them.

But this constant mention of my “inferior” age is getting on my nerves, is uncharitable, rude, and totally uncalled for.

I hope you do not treat everyone that is in some way inferior (if age really is an inferiority) to you…with so much disrespect and indignity.

Goodnight…
I will pray for you…

See the other thread, Missa. I’m sorry if you were offended, but…well, see the other thread.

 

[palmas85]

My goodness…I finish my reply to your attack on my age on the other thread…only to find it repeated here.

Im sorry sir but this has become very offensive…and the tone of this debate on both sides has lost any resemblence to Christian discussion.

Im not going to ask you to apologize for your comments…nor do I expect you to even feel sorry for them.

But this constant mention of my “inferior” age is getting on my nerves, is uncharitable, rude, and totally uncalled for.

I hope you do not treat everyone that is in some way inferior (if age really is an inferiority) to you…with so much disrespect and indignity.

Goodnight…
I will pray for you…

JKirk being called uncharitable!!!:bigyikes: unbelievable, totally unbelievable. Inferior in this case is not an insult but a statement of fact. You are younger, which is what he meant, you are probably not as well educated as my good friend Kirk is or as many of us. While that in no way denigrates and disproves your position, it is possible that a few people here may actually know just a bit more than you. Believe it or not.

Besides why would the mention of your age be rude? Does your age bother you in some way or make you feel insecure? I’ll swap with you if you want. I’d love to be your age again.

 

[cathsem]

I’m going to take a pass on the fighting between Kirk and Missa Solemnis (God bless both of you), and address the question at hand:

Ultimately, as a seminarian who in 2 1/2 years (God willing! ) will take the oath of fidelity and profession of faith, I believe that this debate is really a bit like arguing between whether to call a distance 6 inches or half a foot. They essentially mean the same thing.

The current oath includes the Nicene Creed, but much more than that. It also requires a profession of obedience to Canon Law and a profession to “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 the authentic magisterium even if they proclaim those teachings in an act that is not definitive.”

Also, see the Oath of Fidelity, especially the parts that I have marked in bold:
I, [FIRST MIDDLE LAST NAME],

in assuming the office of deacon, promise that both in my words and in my conduct I shall always preserve communion with the Catholic Church.

I shall carry out with the greatest care and fidelity the duties incumbent on me toward both the universal Church and the particular Church in which, according to the provisions of the law, I have been called to exercise my service.

In fulfilling the charge entrusted to me in the name of the Church, I** shall hold fast to the deposit of faith in its entirety, I shall faithfully hand it on and explain it, and I shall avoid any teachings opposed to that faith.**

I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the whole Church and **I shall observe all ecclesiastical laws, especially those which are contained in the Code of Canon Law.**
In Christian obedience I shall unite myself with what is declared by the bishops as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith or established by them as those responsible for the governance of the Church; I shall also faithfully assist the diocesan bishops, in order that the apostolic activity exercised in the name and by mandate of the Church may be carried out in the communion of the same Church.

So help me God, and God's holy Gospels, on which I place my hand.

I believe that these bolded sections clearly ban modernist teaching. Finally, I should point out that the leaders of the post-VII run of modernism were ordained before 1967…evidence that one can take an anti-modernist oath and still disobey it.

 

[Tomster]

Greetings,

I’d like to know why priests today no longer take the oath against modernism as they did in the pre-concilear days of the church? My understanding is that seminarians took an oath against modernism at some point during they’re time in the seminary, or perhaps at they’re ordination. But today, that’s not the case. Any thoughts?

Pax Christi,
Rocco

www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2006-1015-moral-flaw-vatican-two.htm

The whole article is very good. Check out footnotes 10, 11 and 12 to answer your question directly.

Tomster

 

[Missa_Solemnis]

JKirk being called uncharitable!!!:bigyikes: unbelievable, totally unbelievable. Inferior in this case is not an insult but a statement of fact. You are younger, which is what he meant, you are probably not as well educated as my good friend Kirk is or as many of us. While that in no way denigrates and disproves your position, it is possible that a few people here may actually know just a bit more than you. Believe it or not.

Besides why would the mention of your age be rude? Does your age bother you in some way or make you feel insecure? I’ll swap with you if you want. I’d love to be your age again.

Wow…

The conversation was not about who is more intelligent…it was about the fact that my age seemed to be some kind of theological ace against me.

My age does not bother me, otherwise why would I reveal it? It only bothers me when it hinders sincere conversation. I have several other friends on here that have also been downplayed because of their age…and they are much older than me. All of us are also meeting spiritual directors, and two are even heading off to a seminary next summer. But all of us have been given the “young mini-pope” line… I just hate having to be told that I dont know anything or that I am a (insert heretical title) just because im young and have an opinion.

I dont see how this involves you, me and Kirk stepped out of this conversation last night. So…wether im 5 years old or 50 years old…you dont know anything about me. Or wether im intelligent as a Professor…or dumb as hell.

So my dear adult friend…know your place.

I haven’t made any claims about Jkirk…but he makes claims about me. That was the issue, and that issue is resolved already.

Dont interject and start this all over again.

P.S…This might be one of those other “unbelievable!!!” remarks…but yes, people can always be uncharitable. Whatever the age.

 

[TradyDaddy]

JKirk being called uncharitable!!!:bigyikes: unbelievable, totally unbelievable. Inferior in this case is not an insult but a statement of fact. You are younger, which is what he meant, you are probably not as well educated as my good friend Kirk is or as many of us. While that in no way denigrates and disproves your position, it is possible that a few people here may actually know just a bit more than you. Believe it or not.:

“you are probably not as well educated as my good friend Kirk is or as many of us” ???

Excuse us for being in your presence…WE’RE NOT WORTHY!!!.. WE’RE NOT WORTHY!!!:bowdown:

I’ll side with the young’ens… at least they are intellectually honest.

 

[AJV]

Ah, a duel and now seconds! Wonderful!

http://www.argael.net/smiley/images/duel.gif

http://www.argael.net/smiley/images/duel.gif​

http://www.argael.net/smiley/images/duel.gif[/RIGHT]

Is this first blood, or till death?

 

[Marian_Carroll]

And as we were speaking of “Oath Against Modernism”…let us turn back to that topic before any blood is drawn…

 

[palmas85]

“you are probably not as well educated as my good friend Kirk is or as many of us” ???

Excuse us for being in your presence…WE’RE NOT WORTHY!!!.. WE’RE NOT WORTHY!!!:bowdown:

I’ll side with the young’ens… at least they are intellectually honest.

Side with whoever you want. JKirk is one of the most charitable people I’ve run into on this forum and for him to get bashed the way he was bashed was just wrong. Sorry if that upsets your delicate sensibilities.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

That being said…final call, return to the topic, refrain from discussing each other or the thread will have to close down. Thanks for your help.

 

[LilyM]

I dont see how this involves you, me and Kirk stepped out of this conversation last night. So…wether im 5 years old or 50 years old…you dont know anything about me. Or wether im intelligent as a Professor…or dumb as hell.

So my dear adult friend…know your place.

Umm, Missa - your age isn’t in your profile or anything. You’ve probably mentioned it in a post somewhere which most people (including myself) haven’t read.

You’re right in that your age alone doesn’t matter, although it has some bearing. I’m happy to admit that although I’m not a spring chicken greater wisdom often does come with greater age.

Be that as it may, the mini-popery, as Kirk calls it, is the real concern. I’m not singling you out for this, there are plenty on all sides of the debate who are guilty, although it does seem more virulent among younger people.

The problem lies in the insistence that one knows better than anyone with whom one disagrees with you, even while those persons who do disagree may be fully adhering to all the tenets and practices permitted by our Holy Mother Church for perfectly good and valid reason.

Heck, even the reason that the Church, in as far as it is prevented from teaching error by the Holy Spirit, permits a practice is good enough for me. Remember Peter was told ‘what God has called clean thou shall not call unclean’.

To rephrase a little - ‘what God, [through the Church], calls reverent [or acceptable even, or pick your permissive term] thou shall not call irreverent [or unacceptable or pick your disapproving term].’ That is what is meant by mini-popery.

As I said, I’m not saying this to single you out, there are lots of us around here of all schools of though who are guilty (sometimes if not always) of fallaciously thinking they know better than most everyone else.

 

[palmas85]

Wow…

The conversation was not about who is more intelligent…it was about the fact that my age seemed to be some kind of theological ace against me.

My age does not bother me, otherwise why would I reveal it? It only bothers me when it hinders sincere conversation. I have several other friends on here that have also been downplayed because of their age…and they are much older than me. All of us are also meeting spiritual directors, and two are even heading off to a seminary next summer. But all of us have been given the “young mini-pope” line… I just hate having to be told that I dont know anything or that I am a (insert heretical title) just because im young and have an opinion.

I dont see how this involves you, me and Kirk stepped out of this conversation last night. So…wether im 5 years old or 50 years old…you dont know anything about me. Or wether im intelligent as a Professor…or dumb as hell.

So my dear adult friend…know your place.

I haven’t made any claims about Jkirk…but he makes claims about me. That was the issue, and that issue is resolved already.

Dont interject and start this all over again.

P.S…This might be one of those other “unbelievable!!!” remarks…but yes, people can always be uncharitable. Whatever the age.

Quite true. I am often called uncharitable, probably more than most. Usually by people who think that will shut down an argument because, I suppose, they think being called uncharitable is the absolute thing that can happen to you.

It isn’t It actually doesn’t hurt at all. So it doesn’t bother me and usually means that I’ve done something right.

So my dear adult friend…know your place.

As for knowing my place, I do. I have for a long time.
Do you know yours??

Dont interject and start this all over again.

Ah, now that actually sounds like an order. Having been in the military and in Police work for many years I know about taking orders, and I don’t take them from those not authorized to give them. You’re not authorized, sorry:thumbsup:

It must be terrible to be so brilliant and not have that recognized and respected by one and all. How sad how very sad.

Heartbreaking actually.

Anyway, Merry Christmas. Hope your spiritual quest reveals truths to you that you do not yet know.