Are there any good reasons not to bring back the Oath Against Modernism? If so, I’d like to hear them. (BTW – “It won’t do any good” isn’t one of them.) Either modernism continues to threaten the Church or it doesn’t. Which is it?
This naturally leads one to wonder, invincible ignorance aside, how many clerics could, in good conscience, take the Oath? Could Pope Francis?
I, for one say far too few and no.
I second that motion!
Consider the resolution passed!!!!!!!!!!!
PS The sooner the better.
Great idea. Hard to believe this was used up until 1967. I understand all FSSP priests swear to it. Here’s the text to disturbitute for the swearing in.
Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.
To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.
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. And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated: Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. Thirdly, 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. Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.
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. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm. Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .
Well, I would pray every priest could take such an oath in good conscience. I certainly could.
I would suggest that any clerics who feel unable to sign the Oath should, out of pastoral consideration, give their parishioners a point by point explanation as to why.
The president and faculty of Fisher More College take the Oath Against Modernism at the start of every school year.
The oath against modernism was thrown out the window because it didn’t make any sense to maintain it when most of the clergy was modernist (including Paul VI himself). How could they maintain an oath they no longer believed and professed?
Vatican II had transformed the catholic church into the conciliar church, a modernist religion, therefore the oath had to thrown into the dustbin of history.
Nobody should hold their breath waiting for “pope” Francis to reinstate the oath against modernism. We will sooner see pigs flying than this occurring.
PS ’tis ironic the FSSP priests apparently take the oath against modernism given that they also (someone correct me here if I am mistaken) take an oath accepting Vatican II and the New Mass. Vatican II doesn’t represent the wishes of the modernists come true?
Perhaps there could be “An Oath In Favor of Modernism” and then excommunicate everyone who signs it——if there is any left to do the excommunicating!!!
I was thinking about the vow that the FFI was supposed to take.
I wonder (humour) if they could substitute the Oath Against Modernism
‘ how many clerics could, in good conscience, take the Oath? Could Pope Francis?’
We can all keep on dreaming with this fool in charge….. 🙁
“Are there any good reasons not to bring back the Oath Against Modernism?”
“Next, we meet a young priest-theologian, a peritus at Vatican II, who was on the side of the progressivists from day one, and who was a close co-worker with the modernist Father Karl Rahner at the Council.
In his 1966 book about Vatican II, the young theologian sneers with contempt against the original Council schema, composed under the direction of Cardinal Ottaviani, concerning the Sources of Revelation:
“The text was, if one may use the label, utterly the product of the ‘anti-Modernist’ mentality that had taken shape about the turn of the century. The text was written in a spirit of condemnation and negation, which … had a frigid and even offensive tone to many of the Fathers. And this despite the fact that the content of the text was new to no one. It was exactly like dozens of text-books familiar to the bishops from their seminary days: and in some cases, their former professors were actually responsible for the texts now presented to them.”42
The theologian is appalled at the prospect that the Council would actually reiterate the consistent teaching of the Church of all time; appalled that the Council would have an anti-Modernist tone in fidelity to Pope St. Pius X.”
“Are there any good reasons not to bring back the Oath Against Modernism? If so, I’d like to hear them. (BTW – “It won’t do any good” isn’t one of them.) Either modernism continues to threaten the Church or it doesn’t. Which is it?”
## OTOH, if the 1989 Oath isn’t preventing error, why would the 1910 Oath ?
Who is the theologian sneering at the anti-Modernist approach? It is a young Father Joseph Ratzinger.”
Correction to text of quotation:
…The theologian is appalled at the prospect that the Council would actually reiterate the consistent teaching of the Church of all time; appalled that the Council would have an anti-Modernist tone in fidelity to Pope St. Pius X.”
Who is the theologian sneering at the anti-Modernist approach? It is a young Father Joseph Ratzinger.”
….from “Open letter to confused Catholics (Archbp. Lefebvre)……
…..Modernism is not a recent invention, nor was it in 1901, the year of the famous encyclical. It is the perennial spirit of the Revolution, and it seeks to shut us up within our human-ness and make God an outlaw. Its false definition of faith is directed to the destruction of the authority of God and the authority of the Church.
Faith comes to us from outside, and we have an obligation to submit to it. “He who believes will be saved, and he who does not believe will be condemned”, Our Lord Himself affirms it.
When I went to see the Pope in 1976, to my very great surprise he reproached me for making my seminarists swear an oath against him. I found it hard to conceive where that idea had come from. It had evidently been whispered to him with the intention of harming me. Then it dawned on me that someone had maliciously interpreted in this way the Anti-Modernist Oath which until recently every priest had to take before his ordination, and every Church dignitary when he received his office. His Holiness Paul VI had sworn it more than once. Now here is what we find in this oath: “I hold most certainly and I profess sincerely that Faith is not a blind religious feeling which emerges from the shadows of the subconscious under the pressure of the heart and the inclination of the morally informed will. But it is true assent of the intellect to the truth received from outside, by which we believe to be true on God’s authority all that has been said, attested and revealed by God in person, our Creator and Lord.”
…..This Anti-Modernist Oath is no longer required before becoming a priest or a bishop. If it were, there would be even fewer ordinations than there are. In effect, the concept of faith has been falsified and many people without any wrong intention let themselves be influenced by modernism. That is why they are ready to believe that all religions save……..Miserere!
Does anyone know, why Ars Orandi blog has been removed?
I’m wondering the same thing about Ars Orandi, Halina. I hope it will be corrected soon…
For those who don’t return to preceding threats, I repost.
Elizabeth, Mary K:
Here is Mundabor’s take on “if only the pope would know” storyline. And it is hilarious!
The Oath against Modernism, and the dogmas of the (First) Vatican Council to which it refers, are a wake-up call to all religiously-minded people. They should be disseminated among the laity as widely as possible, regardless of whether any clerical attention is given to them.
As an illustration of the dire situation we are in, and in view of the impending canonizations, here is an interesting look at the recent “evolution” of papal statements on the fundamental subject of truth (with an introductory comment from the Catholic Encyclopedia):
1) “Since various religions are in disagreement, it follows that, wherever they conflict, if one possesses the truth the others are in error.”
(“Religious Indifferentism”, Catholic Encyclopedia)
2) “Some men, indeed do not attack the truth wilfully, but work in heedless disregard of it. They act as though God had given us intellects for some purpose other than the pursuit and attainment of truth. This mistaken sort of action leads directly to that absurd proposition: one religion is just as good as another, for there is no distinction here between truth and falsehood.”
Pope John XXIII, Ad Petri Cathedram
3) “Thanks to the Gospel, the Church possesses the truth about the human being.”
Pope John Paul II, Opening Address at the Puebla Conference (I.9), January 28, 1979
4) “Today, the concepts of truth and intolerance have almost fused together, so that to say one has the truth becomes synonymous with intolerance. And we Christians do not dare to believe or to speak about the truth.” The Pope said that in a certain sense, it is true that no one can say that he “possesses” the truth, precisely because “we belong to the truth which is a living thing.”
Pope Benedict XVI, Homily, Castel Gandolfo, September 3, 2012
5) “And now third: you thirst for the truth. Seek the truth. ‘But, Father, I possess the truth!’. You are wrong because you cannot possess truth, we cannot carry it, we must encounter it.”
Pope Francis, Address to the Young People from the Italian Diocese of Piacenza-Bobbio, August 23, 2013
6) “I also think with affection of those Muslim immigrants who this evening begin the fast of Ramadan, which I trust will bear abundant spiritual fruit.”
Pope Francis, Homily, Lampedusa, July 8, 2013
Here it seems to me as if Benedict dropped the baton and Francis is now running free.
The Oath Against Modernism is a gift from the Church to help us with straight thinking in time of war.
I was really impressed with the way you outlined point by point the progression in the thinking of the post-conciliars popes. Where did you find all those quotes? lol it seems like you could write a book on the subject with all that knowledge! : )
What do you think “St” JP II “The Great” meant by “the Church possesses the truth about the human being”? This sounds eerily reminiscent of Church-of-Man speak, such as Paul VI declaring, “we too, we more than any other, have the CULT OF MAN.” (Paul VI, closing speech, 7th December 1965).
I was really taken aback by B XVI’s comment about truth, “And we Christians do not dare to BELIEVE or to speak about THE TRUTH…” I’ve always considered B XVI a modernist, but the entire quote you provided definitely has made me think we was really a hard core modernist. So much for the “restorer of tradition” fantasy that was basically unfounded.
As regards to “pope” Francis’ statement that “You are wrong because you cannot possess truth” I am not surprised in the least. A person who is a manifest public heretic will hardly expose a Catholic view on the nature of truth.
But aren’t all we just SO excited that Mr Bergoglio will very soon “canonize” “St” JP II “the Great” and “Good” J XIII? I bet Francis is rubbing his hands in glee right now fantasizing about his own “canonization” by some other pretender to the throne of Peter.
In a few years time we will hear the cry: “St” Francis “the Humble” Santo Subito!!!
“In those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a Destroyer.” –St. Francis of Assisi.
I think that a restoration of the Oath against Modernism, as part of the Ordination of Priests, is a very very good idea.
Looking at the Church from it’s enemy’s viewpoint, it would make sense to try to infiltrate that which you oppose because once you gain admission you could willfully decide to do untold damage to souls, and to the organisation generally.
Louie is correct to point out, are any of us, Laity or Clergy, spiritually “fit” enough to adhere to such an Oath?
And is there the “political will” abroad to see the restoration of such an Oath?
On both questions, I have my doubts.
A nice blog entry, Louie.
Edu….you are not far off, according to the so-called Catholic media……Bishop of Rome Francis, is a saint amongst us……….
Francis goes mainstream 🙂
Just put up on the Daily Telegraph website.
And on a similar note, 50 year anniversary of the defeat on the War on Poverty.
Poor Francis. He just got done changing the Church’s mission and this…
If someone in his circle would have just told him.
It was Einstein who first said that the definition of insanity is doing the same things repeatedly, yet expecting a different result each time.
I think the greatness of Josef Ratzinger was that he was humble enough, honest enough, and faithful enough to realize very soon that the Vatican II project was a failure. For me, it was Ratzinger’s interview in 1982 where he stated in a correctly recorded interview, that not every valid council was good for the church.
Also, there evidently was something wrong with the Church before the Council- or how else does one explain how it fell like a house of cards. I recently read Frank Sheed’s Memoire, The Church and I, written from the time when the confusion reigned greater than even today- 1972. He notes that something changed in the audiences after the War- a restlessness or boredom in laity and religious alike.
Edu: In your post to dumb ox I found it interesting that you ended with this quote; “In those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true pastor, but a Destroyer.” –St. Francis of Assisi. Seems prophetic enough indeed, but I wonder if the author ever knew that his own name would be the one taken for “those days”?