Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?  (Read 2195 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Incredulous

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3989
  • Reputation: +4949/-246
  • Gender: Male
Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?
« on: June 19, 2018, 12:49:19 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I recall around 2005, Bp Fellay having the teachers at St. Mary's take this Catholic oath.

    Considering Menzingen's dialogue and compromises with newChurch, the fact that some St. Mary's teachers believe in evolution, did the SSPX leadership quietly slide this oath under the rug?

    Or do their priests still take it?  

    If you read below, it would seem Prof. Father Robinson's new book is a contradiction and violates the oath.



    The Oath Against Modernism
    Pope Pius X - 1910
    THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
    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. 1:19), 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. . .

    Papal Encyclicals Online
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1248
    • Reputation: +1263/-64
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?
    « Reply #1 on: June 19, 2018, 02:45:35 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • Quote

    If you read below, it would seem Prof. Father Robinson's new book is a contradiction and violates the oath.


    Their whole (mis)understanding of dogma, violates the Oath. They believe, like the Romans, that their theologians can interpret (infallibly defined) dogma. Notice the word dogma(s) appears six times in the Oath.



    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)


    Offline Mega-fin

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 223
    • Reputation: +151/-38
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?
    « Reply #2 on: June 19, 2018, 04:22:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes but what is the dogma of Menzingen? “Outside of a personal prelature, there can be no SSPX,” and “outside of the SSPX, there is nothing but schismatics”

    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1312
    • Reputation: +1951/-361
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?
    « Reply #3 on: June 19, 2018, 05:19:53 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Any accommodation with modern Rome is an abandonment of this oath. And I mean at any time during the Society's history. Because modernism is Rome's raison d'etre.

    It would be rather pointless discussing this point with SSPX priests because their contract with their employer would override any other loyalty. With or without any understanding with Rome, the Society is becoming an hybridised version of conservative Catholicism where the SG can initiate reforms at will. Any pope would be envious of such power! When they start viewing modernism as cultural preference, there will be no oath.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17656
    • Reputation: +8118/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?
    « Reply #4 on: June 19, 2018, 06:07:12 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • I recall around 2005, Bp Fellay having the teachers at St. Mary's take this Catholic oath.

    Considering Menzingen's dialogue and compromises with newChurch, the fact that some St. Mary's teachers believe in evolution, did the SSPX leadership quietly slide this oath under the rug?

    Or do their priests still take it?  

    If you read below, it would seem Prof. Father Robinson's new book is a contradiction and violates the oath.



    The Oath Against Modernism
    Pope Pius X - 1910
    THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
    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. 1:19), 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. . .

    Papal Encyclicals Online
    .
    The part that says,
    .
    "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."
    .
    ...after the part that describes what is meant by "truth,"...
    .
    "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...
    .
    ...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.

    .
    ...rather emphasizes the importance of the Apostolic succession. It says that if the Apostles didn't teach "evolutionism" and "big-bangism" to their successors, it means that Our Lord didn't teach them to the Apostles.
    .
    All they (innovators) have left is to say that it's the "inspiration of the Holy Spirit" that teaches to us "evolutionism" and "big-bangism." When you hear that, recall it was the "spirit of Vatican II" that was the excuse for wrecking all the Church worldwide, only problem is they left out one word. It should have been the unclean spirit of Vatican II.
    .
    Therefore, both the so-called evolution of the St. Mary's teachers and the so-called big-bangism of Fr. Robinson would fall under direct condemnation from the Oath Against Modernism.
    .
    Because there has not been any revelation or attestation of these "evolution" and "big-bangism" by a personal God our Creator and Lord, nor handed down to us from the Apostles through the Fathers of the Church.
    .
    This "evolution" and "big-bangism" are precisely this: they are "tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of our age," and have "evolved and changed from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously."
    .
    I know a priest who went to seminary in the SSPX during the late 1990's, who came home to visit after his first 2 years studying. We had a conversation regarding dogma in which he asked me, "Do you mean to say that dogma does not develop over time?" I actually had to explain to him that  the Oath Against Modernism  isn't something that you just say mindlessly, but it is rather something that you must STUDY and COMPREHEND in all its particulars, because it isn't a comic book or a throw-away bulletin from the local parish this week, and the same goes for Pascendi Domenici Gregis and Lamentabili Sane.
    He acted as though what I was telling him was something he was obliged to argue against! And that was 20 years ago!
    .
    Perhaps +Fellay had teachers recite the Oath but if so, that is INSUFFICIENT.
    .
    He ought to have required attendance at a seminar, conference or symposium where Pascendi, Lamentabili and Sacrorum Antistitum (the document in which the Oath is contained) are studied in depth and their application to today's situation. And anyone subject to completing the course and taking the Oath who doesn't comply would be FIRED on the spot.
    .
    When it comes to Modernism, its adherents are stubborn, resourceful and slippery devils who go to no small effort to circumvent opposition to their heresy, a heresy which is the Grand Sewer of All Heresies (what Pope St. Pius X wanted to say when he called it the "synthesis of all heresy," but was no doubt afraid of scandalizing faithful Catholics with too-strong language).
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17656
    • Reputation: +8118/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?
    « Reply #5 on: June 19, 2018, 06:27:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I recall around 2005, Bp Fellay having the teachers at St. Mary's take this Catholic oath.
    .
    Does anyone believe that they knew what they were saying?
    IF THEY TOOK THE OATH, did they comprehend the meaning of the words they spoke?
    Did anyone bother to go over the text with patient attention to detail, and to take a few hours to study Pascendi with them?
    .
    These are things you can't just "read" -- you have to STUDY them.
    There is an excellent book by Fr. Lemius, called A CATECHISM OF MODERNISM, which ought to be used as a textbook for this.
    (As I recall there was a later edition that had a different title, A Catechism on Modernism, but AFAIK the same content.)
    .
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline klasG4e

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1554
    • Reputation: +833/-131
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?
    « Reply #6 on: June 19, 2018, 07:07:05 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • .
     It says that if the Apostles didn't teach "evolutionism" and "big-bangism" to their successors, it means that Our Lord didn't teach them to the Apostles.
    .
    All they (innovators) have left is to say that it's the "inspiration of the Holy Spirit" that teaches to us "evolutionism" and "big-bangism." When you hear that, recall it was the "spirit of Vatican II" that was the excuse for wrecking all the Church worldwide, only problem is they left out one word. It should have been the unclean spirit of Vatican II.
    .
    Therefore, both the so-called evolution of the St. Mary's teachers and the so-called big-bangism of Fr. Robinson would fall under direct condemnation from the Oath Against Modernism.
    .
    Because there has not been any revelation or attestation of these "evolution" and "big-bangism" by a personal God our Creator and Lord, nor handed down to us from the Apostles through the Fathers of the Church.
    .
    This "evolution" and "big-bangism" are precisely this: they are "tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of our age," and have "evolved and changed from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously."
    .

    Very well stated!

    And now let us turn to a rather startling entry which has been on the SSPX website for quite some time.  At this link (http://sspx.org/en/sspx-on-geocentrism-press-release-galileo-heliocentric-solar-system-bible-divino-afflatu-spiritu-providentissimus-deus ) we see the entry which states the following in the second paragraph: "The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics ... may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory."  And in the second to last paragraph we are told again: "Catholics ... may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory."

    The SSPX on geocentrism: press release

    What is the SSPX's position concerning the heliocentric and geocentric scientific theories of the solar system?

    PLATTE CITY, MO (8-30-2011) A recent news report implied that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X promotes the scientific theory of geocentrism as a Catholic teaching based upon the Bible. The SSPX holds no such position.

    The Church’s magisterium teaches that Catholics should not use Sacred Scripture to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. As a religious congregation of the Catholic Church, the SSPX holds to these principles and does not teach any solar scientific theory.


    The SSPX and the solar system

    As declared by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus, science cannot contradict the Faith:
    Quote
    There can never… be any real discrepancy between the theologian and the physicist, as long as each confines himself within his own lines, and both are careful, as St. Augustine warns us, 'not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known.'"
    Even today, many commonly-held tenets of natural science are merely theories, not certainties. This is not the case with the Catholic Faith, which is a certainty.

    The Church’s magisterium authoritatively teaches on the correct interpretation of Sacred Scripture. As Pope Pius XII taught in Divino Afflatu Spiritu:
    Quote
    The Holy Ghost, Who spoke by them [the sacred writers], did not intend to teach men these things—that is the essential nature of the things of the universe... [which principle] will apply to cognate sciences…"
    Providentissimus Deus also states that Scripture does not give scientific explanations and many of its texts use “figurative language” or expressions “commonly used at the time”, still used today “even by the most eminent men of science” (like the word “sunrise”). Such expressions are not scientific teachings about the cosmic world.

    So Catholics should not use the Bible to assert explanations about natural science, but may in good conscience hold to any particular cosmic theory. Being faithful to the Church’s magisterium, the Society of St. Pius X holds fast to these principles: no more and no less.

    Further reading

    ***********************************************************************************************************************
    No wonder why Fr. Robinson's book got the SSPX green light for publication and promotion  Ugh! See https://therealistguide.com/  and  https://angeluspress.org/products/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science.

    Offline Marlelar

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3475
    • Reputation: +1808/-222
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?
    « Reply #7 on: June 19, 2018, 07:09:15 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Catechism on Modernism is available for free in digital format from archive.org

    Catechism on Modernism


    Offline Incredulous

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3989
    • Reputation: +4949/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?
    « Reply #8 on: June 19, 2018, 07:59:11 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    The part that says,
    .
    "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."
    .
    ...after the part that describes what is meant by "truth,"...
    .
    "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...
    .
    ...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.

    .
    ...rather emphasizes the importance of the Apostolic succession. It says that if the Apostles didn't teach "evolutionism" and "big-bangism" to their successors, it means that Our Lord didn't teach them to the Apostles.
    .
    All they (innovators) have left is to say that it's the "inspiration of the Holy Spirit" that teaches to us "evolutionism" and "big-bangism." When you hear that, recall it was the "spirit of Vatican II" that was the excuse for wrecking all the Church worldwide, only problem is they left out one word. It should have been the unclean spirit of Vatican II.
    .
    Therefore, both the so-called evolution of the St. Mary's teachers and the so-called big-bangism of Fr. Robinson would fall under direct condemnation from the Oath Against Modernism.
    .
    Because there has not been any revelation or attestation of these "evolution" and "big-bangism" by a personal God our Creator and Lord, nor handed down to us from the Apostles through the Fathers of the Church.
    .
    This "evolution" and "big-bangism" are precisely this: they are "tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of our age," and have "evolved and changed from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously."
    .
    I know a priest who went to seminary in the SSPX during the late 1990's, who came home to visit after his first 2 years studying. We had a conversation regarding dogma in which he asked me, "Do you mean to say that dogma does not develop over time?" I actually had to explain to him that  the Oath Against Modernism  isn't something that you just say mindlessly, but it is rather something that you must STUDY and COMPREHEND in all its particulars, because it isn't a comic book or a throw-away bulletin from the local parish this week, and the same goes for Pascendi Domenici Gregis and Lamentabili Sane.
    He acted as though what I was telling him was something he was obliged to argue against! And that was 20 years ago!
    .
    Perhaps +Fellay had teachers recite the Oath but if so, that is INSUFFICIENT.
    .
    He ought to have required attendance at a seminar, conference or symposium where Pascendi, Lamentabili and Sacrorum Antistitum (the document in which the Oath is contained) are studied in depth and their application to today's situation. And anyone subject to completing the course and taking the Oath who doesn't comply would be FIRED on the spot.
    .
    When it comes to Modernism, its adherents are stubborn, resourceful and slippery devils who go to no small effort to circumvent opposition to their heresy, a heresy which is the Grand Sewer of All Heresies (what Pope St. Pius X wanted to say when he called it the "synthesis of all heresy," but was no doubt afraid of scandalizing faithful Catholics with too-strong language).
    .
    Great analysis Neil!
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17656
    • Reputation: +8118/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?
    « Reply #9 on: June 20, 2018, 04:37:51 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    A recent video with Hugh Owen speaking about the Consecration of Russia, where he explains that the principle error of Russia which has been the beginning of all the other errors is the fallacy of biological evolution. He says that Josef Stalin was educated in a monastic seminary, but he also read the books of Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin, which convinced him there is no God and the Bible is a pile of myths. That is what set him on his track of the Russian Revolution.
    .
    Owen believes that when the Pope and Bishops of the world obey Our Lady's request to collegially consecrate Russia by name to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, it will overthrow the great lie of evolution and will render contraception as the evil that it is.
    .
    Owen explains that to think that the Consecration of Russia will somehow "fix" something that is broken, would be a mistake. He points out that a consecration doesn't REPAIR something that is broken, rather, it brings into full development the latent power and efficacy of something in which this faculty is currently LATENT. An analogy is waking up someone who is comatose, or putting the key into the ignition of a car so it's engine can be started. The man in a coma isn't broken, he just needs to be brought to consciousness, and the turned-off car can be mechanically sound, but it won't operate without turning the key. The Consecration of Russia will wake up the dormant Catholicity of that nation, and will activate God's grace in their lives for the benefit of the entire world. He provides many examples.
    .
    The sin of contraception is at the root of all moral evil. Owen explains that once you have contraception being practiced you have no basis for resisting any other moral evil. In our time for every million children born there have been 10 million murdered, by abortion and forms of contraception that prohibit the embryo from a safe and secure development. This is the INVERSE of decimation (1 out of 10 killed), whereby 9 out of 10 are killed. But ANY act of man that prevents conception, even before fertilization, is an inexcusable crime against the law of God. Never before in the history of the world have we had such a situation of one in ten children surviving infanticide, unless perhaps it existed before the great Flood of Noah, and we don't have any record of that having been going on, but perhaps that was one of their moral evils, for which God destroyed all flesh on earth, but for Noah and his family.
    .

    .
    Contraception IS substance abuse!
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 17656
    • Reputation: +8118/-609
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?
    « Reply #10 on: June 20, 2018, 05:02:58 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Any accommodation with modern Rome is an abandonment of this oath. And I mean at any time during the Society's history. Because modernism is Rome's raison d'etre.
    .
    I should hope this is not the case (bold part). That's scary!
    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline Croagh Patrick

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 60
    • Reputation: +81/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?
    « Reply #11 on: June 20, 2018, 10:28:18 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    A recent video with Hugh Owen speaking about the Consecration of Russia, where he explains that the principle error of Russia which has been the beginning of all the other errors is the fallacy of biological evolution. He says that Josef Stalin was educated in a monastic seminary, but he also read the books of Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin, which convinced him there is no God and the Bible is a pile of myths. That is what set him on his track of the Russian Revolution.
    .
    Owen believes that when the Pope and Bishops of the world obey Our Lady's request to collegially consecrate Russia by name to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, it will overthrow the great lie of evolution and will render contraception as the evil that it is.
    .
    Owen explains that to think that the Consecration of Russia will somehow "fix" something that is broken, would be a mistake. He points out that a consecration doesn't REPAIR something that is broken, rather, it brings into full development the latent power and efficacy of something in which this faculty is currently LATENT. An analogy is waking up someone who is comatose, or putting the key into the ignition of a car so it's engine can be started. The man in a coma isn't broken, he just needs to be brought to consciousness, and the turned-off car can be mechanically sound, but it won't operate without turning the key. The Consecration of Russia will wake up the dormant Catholicity of that nation, and will activate God's grace in their lives for the benefit of the entire world. He provides many examples.
    .
    The sin of contraception is at the root of all moral evil. Owen explains that once you have contraception being practiced you have no basis for resisting any other moral evil. In our time for every million children born there have been 10 million murdered, by abortion and forms of contraception that prohibit the embryo from a safe and secure development. This is the INVERSE of decimation (1 out of 10 killed), whereby 9 out of 10 are killed. But ANY act of man that prevents conception, even before fertilization, is an inexcusable crime against the law of God. Never before in the history of the world have we had such a situation of one in ten children surviving infanticide, unless perhaps it existed before the great Flood of Noah, and we don't have any record of that having been going on, but perhaps that was one of their moral evils, for which God destroyed all flesh on earth, but for Noah and his family.
    .

    .
    Contraception IS substance abuse!
    Fantastic analogy Neil!! Can I add my opinion with regard to the sin of contraception. There is also the lives "snuffed out" (for use opf a better word) by contraception which are within the child after conception i.e. where the ovum are formed within a female child after 10 days of conception. In our native language in Ireland the gaelic word for abortion is ginmhilleadh which translates to generation destruction, and I believe this to multiply where contraception is abused as in the case of abortion a select number of ovum are formed but in contraception we can only guess how many lives are intentionally obliterated never ever to exist.

    Offline cassini

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1465
    • Reputation: +750/-88
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?
    « Reply #12 on: June 20, 2018, 12:32:34 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • The Oath Against Modernism
    Pope Pius X - 1910
    THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
    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. 1:19), 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.

    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.


    In 1907, Pope Pius X defined Modernism as a heresy in his encyclicals Pascendi dominici gregis and Lamentabili sane exitu. By Modernism the pope meant the ‘evolution’ of Catholic dogmas and teachings. By then of course the greatest evolutionary change had come about in the Church itself when Rome allowed the flock to accept heliocentrism in spite of the 1616 and 1633 decrees that defined and declared such a belief as formal heresy. It was the denial of the universe of the senses and the Bible for a universe of the mind, one that belonged more to science than to the God of Genesis that began the greatest of all evolutions, one that affected the faith of billions and would lead directly to the mother of all evolutionary modernism, the Big Bang. With the approval of both faith and science having approved this revolution and reformation, how on Earth could the rot be stopped.

    Read the above passages in the light that the 1616-1633 decrees were never proven wrong. Throughout the U-turn, the geocentrists were labeled as 'retards' and the heliocentrists were the 'educated.' Galileo said it, Fr Lazarri of the 1741 Holy Office said it, Fr Olivieri of the 1820 Holy Office said it and Henri Newman said it when he converted millions to long ages and evolution in his GALILEO, REVELATION AND THE EDUCATED MAN, 1861.

    Now can anyone tell me was the opinion that the Bible was never intended to teach us the things of nature about the universe or anything like that a TRADITIONAL TEACHING or was it INVENTED AND USED BY POPES IN THE WAKE OF THE GALILEAN U-TURN? I ask this because as it turned out all the evidence from science indicates a geocentric universe. In other words, science is now contradicting this NEW DOGMA used in the Church by Popes in the wake of that U-turn and CONFIRMING THAT THE BIBLE DID TEACH US THE TRUE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE. Moreover, it was this 'never intended' new dogma that ALLOWED long ages and evolution to become acceptable in the Catholic faith as popes, especially Pius XII, demonstrated. 

    The SSPX, like the churchmen since 1835, be they traditionalists or Vatican IIers are all Modernists when it comes to biblical revelation. The damage was done from 1741 and the demise of Catholicism on Earth today is the result of the MODERISING of the geocentric passages of Scripture..


        

    Offline klasG4e

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1554
    • Reputation: +833/-131
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?
    « Reply #13 on: June 20, 2018, 05:40:06 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • .
    A recent video with Hugh Owen

    Rather amazing that the same Hugh Owen, founder and director of the Kolbe Center is rightly against Big Bangism and Big Bangism properly gets the boot in the material produced by the Kolbe Center, but at the same time they now have highlighted on their website Fr. Paul Robinson's book.  See http://kolbecenter.org/the-realist-guide-to-religion-and-science/

    What gives?  I just requested some clarification on this matter from Mr. Owen via the contact on the Center's site.  Stay tuned!

    Offline Incredulous

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3989
    • Reputation: +4949/-246
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Do SSPX priests still take "The Oath Against Modernism" ?
    « Reply #14 on: June 20, 2018, 06:09:38 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1


  •   The "Bill Nye, science guy" of Tradition
    "Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it underfoot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor but a destroyer."  St. Francis of Assisi

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16