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 docuмents.

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

.
 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."
.

• Home

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.'"

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…"

• Galileo: victim or villain?

.
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 docuмent 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 circuмvent 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).
.

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.

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.