Pope St. Pius X, Oath of Modernism

[Pitcairn17]

Pope letter from Pius X

This includes National Catholic Reporter, OnePeterFive, Lepanto, CM, and others that imply they are Catholic, writing about the Church or the Faith.

I would agree with all of your list except for Onepeterfive, Lepanto, CM, Rorate and Remnant.
All the others I agree censure.

So these publications, in your opinion, are incapable of printing something “dangerous,” or otherwise erroneous with regards to the Faith? Who knew infallibility pertained to select private publications ?

 

[commenter]

The part I quoted was from section 52. But other sections also shed light on my point.

The problem is everyone likes certain parts of Pius X, and omits others. He is a very important pope, but look at all he said. One very neglected document is his Encyclical on Catholic Action.

His concept of the local Ordinary, and diocese, is wildly different from that of Call to Action, Rorate, Catholics for Choice, etc.

One sign of a good churchman is that he calls everyone to change.

 

[Lysander]

Thanks for the comment. I think people are reading too much into my post. Didn’t have anything to do with SSPX (don’t attend Mass there).

 

[ioannes_pius]

This is true for every Pope and his ex officio teachings; we must take them all together in their proper context, not cherrypick the things we like in isolation.

 

[CilladeRoma]

I am not mad or offended. My experience tells me when someone just posts a Papal writing from the past, with no context or comment, it is usually an indictment of the current Magisterium and Holy Father.
So, I asked for context, and have had it implied and been accused of all sorts of nefarious motives.
I guess I have all the answers I need and can leave this discussion now.

 

[Lysander]

Sorry that you have had that happened in the past. That was and is not my intention.

 

[commenter]

I agree with those who post the Pope’s teaching on Modernism. Yes, it still is a serious problem.

There are those who oppose Modernism quietly, working for orthodoxy in conjunction with their local diocese, and the Church. They facilitate some actions here and there against modernism, for orthodoxy.

Then there are those who are “independent” of the Church. They offer thrills and chills on their websites and books by slamming the same bishops the enemies of the Church slam.

They facilitate no actions against modernism, or for orthodoxy.

 

[Lysander]

I agree with you. Thats why I didnt go into any attacks on anyone just posted the writing.

 

[Mark121359]

but we also know more now than Plus X did.

Right. Now we pay homage to Pachamama, and we’re on the brink of having to confess sins committed against mother earth. Yes, we know much more now.

 

[godisgood77]

Right. Now we pay homage to Pachamama, and we’re on the brink of having to confess sins committed against mother earth. Yes, we know much more now.

We do know more now…

Those going ballistic about the statue at the Synod are typical (over) reactionary folks who look at everything this Pope does with suspicion instead of the respect due to the Holy Father.

It is hard to understand really… and it betrays an massive ignorance of the Church’s history to taking pagan symbols and making them Catholic over time… like St. John Henry Newman said… "The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees, incense, lamps and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water, asylums; holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the east, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the church.”

These things didn’t happen in an instant … those cultures needed to be brought in and attracted to the the Catholic religion first.

There is a very loud voice going nuts about this Pachamama event… I can’t help think of when St Paul admonished St Peter for his close mindedness and views abourt the gentiles… The ‘outrage’ from certain sectors of the Church is, frankly, embarrasing for the Church

 

[godisgood77]

sins committed against mother earth.

Looking forward to it this addition to the Catechism… there is an entire papal encyclical about our common home - Laudato Si . In case you didn’t know, if you follow the Oath agains Modernism, you would have to follow this magisterial teaching…

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

If it is about authentic, orthodox Catholicism, restrictions must be imposed by the guardians of progressivism (aka modernism, how 'bout that?)

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

The ‘outrage’ from certain sectors of the Church is, frankly, embarrasing for the Church

Frankly, it is the pachamamas and their fans that are an embarrassment to the Church

 

[commenter]

Mark121359:

Right. Now we pay homage to Pachamama, and we’re on the brink of having to confess sins committed against mother earth. Yes, we know much more now.

We do know more now…

Those going ballistic about the statue at the Synod are typical (over) reactionary folks who look at everything this Pope does with suspicion instead of the respect due to the Holy Father.

It is hard to understand really… and it betrays an massive ignorance of the Church’s history to taking pagan symbols and making them Catholic over time… like St. John Henry Newman said… "The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees, incense, lamps and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water, asylums; holy days and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the east, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the church.”

These things didn’t happen in an instant … those cultures needed to be brought in and attracted to the the Catholic religion first.

When a small child does certain things, we don’t correct them for being “childish”. But if a teenager who should know better reverts back to that behavior, we might.

Suppose an ancient person wrote an explanation of geography, with a fairly accurate description of their immediate area, but also said the Earth is flat. You wouldn’t criticize them, they did a good job for their time. But if a modern teacher taught that the Earth is flat, you would not let them in a classroom, you definitely wouldn’t let them make decisions for the whole Church at a 2019 Geography Synod.

 

[OraLabora]

Given that Laudato Si falls under neither of these categories, it could possibly have error and thus belief is not required under the oath or under the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

Seems like a reductive way to look at the papacy, especially it’s teaching role.

In any case, both the Oath, and Laudato Si are encyclicals and thus carry the same weight. And while Laudato Si is still in effect, the oath has not been required for more than 50 years.

An encyclical is not something to be ignored just because it doesn’t correspond to one’s world view. That would make one a cafeteria Catholic. At the very least an encyclical that applies to us (the oath did not apply to laity) should require that we properly form our consciences before rejecting it.

 

[ioannes_pius]

The Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is also infallible.

Regardless, infallible statements alone are not the only no unerring teachings of the church, because infallibility in this sense does not mean freedom from error. It means freedom from the possibility of error.

Never has any theologian taught that a Pope could teach doctrinal or moral error ex officio. On the contrary, theologians have always taught that the official teachings of Popes will always be “sufficiently safe” for belief by the faithful. This is because he Holy Spirit still guides Popes in their official, non-infallible teachings, albeit in a different way than in their infallible teachings.

It is not for the faithful to sift through the pronouncements of the Magisterium, choosing which ones are correct to adhere to and which ones are false and cannot be adhered to. That’s not how Christ set it up.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

infallibility in this sense does not mean freedom from error. It means freedom from the possibility of error.

I agree with everything you have said, but I do not understand above concept. If there is no possibility of error, there can not be error logically speaking. What do you mean by this statement? That we should adhere to that teaching because we respect authority and should be humble enough to submit to Church, or something else?

 

[ioannes_pius]

As I reread my post, I understand your confusion. My explanation was not totally accurate.

I got the concept from the catholic encyclopedia, here’s what it says:

“ It is well further to explain:

• that infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error”

So, you are correct in saying that infallibility does entail freedom from error. What I should have said was that this is not merely what infallibility is. It is also freedom from the possibility of error.

Does that make sense?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Yes, I think so. Thank you for clarification.

 

[commenter]

But being free from error does not necessarily mean the pope knows the answer. I think there have been times when the Church, and the pope himself, would have liked to give something closure, or full clarification. But he didn’t know the answer, so he reminded silent.