Was the Oath Against Modernism violated?

[ajpirc]

I have done much research on the Oath Against Modernism that all clergy, before being ordained to the subdiaconate, had to take it and support everything written in Pope St. Pius X’s encyclicals Lamentabili Sane and Pascendi Dominici Gregis. All clergy had taken it from 1910 until it was abolished in 1967, right after Vatican II. This meant that all of the Council Fathers had taken this Oath to God Almighty against Modernism.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in his 1982 treatise on Catholic Theology, stated that the documents of Vatican II were intended to correct the position adopted by the Church under Pope Pius IX and Pope Saint Pius X, the Popes whose Syllabi of Errors and Encyclicals warned against the dangers of the heresy of Modernism (Saint Pius X called it “the synthesis of all heresies”). He also stated that the documents were a “counter syllabus” for the teachings against the reconciliation of the Church and the modern world by Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII.

If Vatican II’s documents were a “counter syllabus” for the teaching against Modernism, did the Council Father’s violate the Oath Against Modernism?

 

[khawk2]

I have done much research on the Oath Against Modernism that all clergy, before being ordained to the subdiaconate, had to take it and support everything written in Pope St. Pius X’s encyclicals Lamentabili Sane and Pascendi Dominici Gregis. All clergy had taken it from 1910 until it was abolished in 1967, right after Vatican II. This meant that all of the Council Fathers had taken this Oath to God Almighty against Modernism.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in his 1982 treatise on Catholic Theology, stated that the documents of Vatican II were intended to correct the position adopted by the Church under Pope Pius IX and Pope Saint Pius X, the Popes whose Syllabi of Errors and Encyclicals warned against the dangers of the heresy of Modernism (Saint Pius X called it “the synthesis of all heresies”). He also stated that the documents were a “counter syllabus” for the teachings against the reconciliation of the Church and the modern world by Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII.

If Vatican II’s documents were a “counter syllabus” for the teaching against Modernism, did the Council Father’s violate the Oath Against Modernism?

Oh, I wouldn’t touch this one with a ten foot pole… Not being schooled in Theology I would only say that we are bound to all Catholic Dogma. I guess that the hierarchy of the Church probably has heated discussions over this very subject and if you ask anyone in the SSPX they will tell you that Vatican II indeed violated the oath of modernism and that is why the oath was abandoned but they are still in schism with the Vatican so I am not sure what weight that carries. We are bound by all Catholic Dogma INCLUDING Vatican II.

 

[Cristiano]

I have done much research on the Oath Against Modernism that all clergy, before being ordained to the subdiaconate, had to take it and support everything written in Pope St. Pius X’s encyclicals Lamentabili Sane and Pascendi Dominici Gregis. All clergy had taken it from 1910 until it was abolished in 1967, right after Vatican II. This meant that all of the Council Fathers had taken this Oath to God Almighty against Modernism.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in his 1982 treatise on Catholic Theology, stated that the documents of Vatican II were intended to correct the position adopted by the Church under Pope Pius IX and Pope Saint Pius X, the Popes whose Syllabi of Errors and Encyclicals warned against the dangers of the heresy of Modernism (Saint Pius X called it “the synthesis of all heresies”). He also stated that the documents were a “counter syllabus” for the teachings against the reconciliation of the Church and the modern world by Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII.

If Vatican II’s documents were a “counter syllabus” for the teaching against Modernism, did the Council Father’s violate the Oath Against Modernism?

Would you be so kind to give specific references? I can understand your concern but It appears to me that you are using the shotgun approach make sure that your point is valid. Without a lack of specific referenced details you end up using assumptions and correlations that are to general to give a reasonable yes or no answer.

If I were to bet on it I would say that is probable that some of the Council Fathers violated the Oath Against Modernism even if they might have not intended so. However, this is just pure speculation on my side and it is not a very Christian and charitable way to think. As Catholics we are to judge specific behaviors and not bet on the probability that other people sin or not, and that is why I am asking very specific references/quotes (e.g. dubious document, page, paragraph compared to doctrinally correct document, page, paragraph). I mean that usually context is of the essence when we look at statements form people, we cannot even take the Word of God out of its context.

 

[ajpirc]

Would you be so kind to give specific references? I can understand your concern but It appears to me that you are using the shotgun approach make sure that your point is valid. Without a lack of specific referenced details you end up using assumptions and correlations that are to general to give a reasonable yes or no answer.

Absolutely.

I have done much research on the Oath Against Modernism that all clergy, before being ordained to the subdiaconate, had to take it and support everything written in Pope St. Pius X’s encyclicals Lamentabili Sane and Pascendi Dominici Gregis. All clergy had taken it from 1910 until it was abolished in 1967, right after Vatican II. This meant that all of the Council Fathers had taken this Oath to God Almighty against Modernism.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in his 1982 treatise on Catholic Theology, stated that the documents of Vatican II were intended to correct the position adopted by the Church under Pope Pius IX and Pope Saint Pius X, the Popes whose Syllabi of Errors and Encyclicals warned against the dangers of the heresy of Modernism (Saint Pius X called it “the synthesis of all heresies”). He also stated that the documents were a “counter syllabus” for the teachings against the reconciliation of the Church and the modern world by Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII.

The Popes Against Modern Errors (Anthony J. Mioni)

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (Sister Mary Frances McCarthy) pages 381-382

The Code of Canon Law: A text and Commentary (James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green & Donald E. Heintschel), page 585

“Oath against Modernism” in The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, on page 926

(I lost the website for a source. If I find it, I’ll post it)

I hope these help

 

[smichhertz]

Wow, I never knew that! There was an Oath Against Modernism?

Do you happen to have any links to some good Catholic resources on this? I would be curious to learn more.

Thanks!

 

[ajpirc]

Wow, I never knew that! There was an Oath Against Modernism?

Do you happen to have any links to some good Catholic resources on this? I would be curious to learn more.

Thanks!

Oath Against Modernism

Lamentabili Sane

Pascendi Dominici Gregis

 

[smichhertz]

Oath Against Modernism

Lamentabili Sane

Pascendi Dominici Gregis

Thanks! That was quick.

 

[ajpirc]

Would you be so kind to give specific references? I can understand your concern but It appears to me that you are using the shotgun approach make sure that your point is valid. Without a lack of specific referenced details you end up using assumptions and correlations that are to general to give a reasonable yes or no answer.

Well, I found an article that was talking about it:

Article

It has the sources after it.

 

[ajpirc]

Thanks!

Anytime

That was quick.

That’s probably the fastest I’ve ever posted anything.

 

[Cristiano]

Very good work. Now can you please show me which specific part of the Oath Against Modernism would have been broken? I am referring to specific teaching and dogmas, not just wording of ideas outside teachings and dogmas.

 

[ajpirc]

Very good work. Now can you please show me which specific part of the Oath Against Modernism would have been broken? I am referring to specific teaching and dogmas, not just wording of ideas outside teachings and dogmas.

“Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas.”

This may not answer the question, but it’s probably the best answer.

 

[Will_S]

We are bound by all Catholic Dogma INCLUDING Vatican II.

There is no new dogma in Vatican II, so that argument goes right out the window.

 

[Will_S]

Very good work. Now can you please show me which specific part of the Oath Against Modernism would have been broken? I am referring to specific teaching and dogmas, not just wording of ideas outside teachings and dogmas.

In order to break the oath, it would only be required that a person broke what they swore to in the oath, no matter whether you would consider it “wording of ideas outside teachings and dogmas” or not.

Really, the answer to this question is that whether or not any individual broke their oath is between them and God.

 

[Cristiano]

Well, I found an article that was talking about it:

Article

It has the sources after it.

Good work. I decided that I am going to be quite open in what I was trying to do. I was going to bring you into the position of simply accepting any “traditionalist” publication that would appear reasonable to finally bring to you agree with the opinions of the sedevacantist movement. At that point I would have shown you that if you really believe what you say then you must admit that we had invalid Popes for the longest times, and such an admission would put you in a position of heretic schism. I encourage you to study the basic before you go on wild goose chase across the internet. The devil gets to us with the truth and then with some lies. Be very careful of what you pursue and always ask yourself “Why am I doing it?” “Is it consistent with what the Church teaches and accepts?”. Before going to argue about documents concerning possible aberrations in theological concepts, go and work on the fundamental documents of the theology that is already accepted by the Church. You cannot discuss the Oath without discussing aberrations in Theology. I told you in a previous thread that it is the young generations like yours that will protect the Church, continue to build on the cornerstone instead of trying to take away things that are already there.The cornerstone will not let little imperfections undermine the stability of the building. Traditions are good for the Church, but being a traditionalist just because it is counter-cultural does not ensure that it will bring any good to the Church.

 

[Cristiano]

In order to break the oath, it would only be required that a person broke what they swore to in the oath, no matter whether you would consider it “wording of ideas outside teachings and dogmas” or not…

An Oath is not a magic spell, it is taken to support a specific purpose with specific methods, and you take the Oath to keep that purpose. If you follow what you think the methods are and they take you against the original purpose then you you break the Oath. Methods are a tool that must be used with discernment.

 

[ajpirc]

Good work. I decided that I am going to be quite open in what I was trying to do. I was going to bring you into the position of simply accepting any “traditionalist” publication that would appear reasonable to finally bring to you agree with the opinions of the sedevacantist movement. At that point I would have shown you that if you really believe what you say then you must admit that we had invalid Popes for the longest times, and such an admission would put you in a position of heretic schism. I encourage you to study the basic before you go on wild goose chase across the internet. The devil gets to us with the truth and then with some lies. Be very careful of what you pursue and always ask yourself “Why am I doing it?” “Is it consistent with what the Church teaches and accepts?”. Before going to argue about documents concerning possible aberrations in theological concepts, go and work on the fundamental documents of the theology that is already accepted by the Church. You cannot discuss the Oath without discussing aberrations in Theology. I told you in a previous thread that it is the young generations like yours that will protect the Church, continue to build on the cornerstone instead of trying to take away things that are already there.The cornerstone will not let little imperfections undermine the stability of the building. Traditions are good for the Church, but being a traditionalist just because it is counter-cultural does not ensure that it will bring any good to the Church.

So was what Pope St. Pius X saying about Modernism being, not only a heresy, but the "synthesis of all heresies a lie?

 

[Will_S]

An Oath is not a magic spell, it is taken to support a specific purpose with specific methods, and you take the Oath to keep that purpose. If you follow what you think the methods are and they take you against the original purpose then you you break the Oath. Methods are a tool that must be used with discernment.

Any oath is a solemn promise to do something. If you then fail to do what you have solemnly promised in your oath, then you have broken the oath. It is really that simple.

The question then becomes, is there ever a good reason to break an oath? In fact, there is sometimes good reason to break an oath. If for example, upholding an oath would cause you to sin, then it would be right to break the oath.

 

[Cristiano]

So was what Pope St. Pius X saying about Modernism being, not only a heresy, but the "synthesis of all heresies a lie?

Not at all, on the contrary I think that the Oath Against Modernism made a lot of sense at that time, and something similar would help a lot right now. However, I see your statement as a non sequitur.

 

[Cristiano]

Any oath is a solemn promise to do something. If you then fail to do what you have solemnly promised in your oath, then you have broken the oath. It is really that simple.

The question then becomes, is there ever a good reason to break an oath? In fact, there is sometimes good reason to break an oath. If for example, upholding an oath would cause you to sin, then it would be right to break the oath.

Again, an oath has a specific purpose, it does not exist for itself. You cannot use the methods of the oath if they go against the intended purpose. You must adhere to “purpose and methods” and not to “purpose or methods”. Your second statement is aligned with what I am saying and you break the oath because you go against the methods. I think that my statements in the previous posts were more confusing than explanatory, I apologize for that.

 

[ajpirc]

Not at all, on the contrary I think that the Oath Against Modernism made a lot of sense at that time, and something similar would help a lot right now. However, I see your statement as a non sequitur.

Would you say that Vatican II did introduce Modernism into Church doctrine?