OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
Sean Mac Eochaidh
have decided to take the Oath against Modernism, and suggest that
all Catholics in Ireland, especially priests, teachers, and
journalists do the same.
This oath was issued by Pope St. Pius X on September 1, 1910 and
required of all priests and philosophy and theology professors. I
fail to understand why it was abolished in 1967.
"I, Sean Mac Eochaidh, Founder, Pobal na h-Eireann, 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 (cf. Rom. 1:20),
that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its
effects, and that, therfore, 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 philosphical 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 assested 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 irreconcible with a more realistic view of the origins of the
Christian Religion.
"I also condemn and reject the opinions of those who say that a
well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality - that of a
believer, and at the same time of an 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 an 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
he should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers
solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority,
and with the same liberty of judgement 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
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 dogmas 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 many 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, thus I swear, so help me God."
Sean Mac Eochaidh, Founder, Pobal na h-Eireann - 9 April 2002
Legatus
Eochaidh <j.ca...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Because of the present confusion and scandals in the Church, I
> have decided to take the Oath against Modernism, and suggest that
> all Catholics in Ireland, especially priests, teachers, and
> journalists do the same.
Well I'm happy. Now if we could just get the American bishops to do
it...
Oh, I'm gonna LOVE this!
Steve (error has no rights!)
Daniel Höhr
<snipped>
> This oath was issued by Pope St. Pius X on September 1, 1910 and
> required of all priests and philosophy and theology professors. I
> fail to understand why it was abolished in 1967.
Yes, of course. Pius X. The one who had the obsession with tradition and
paranoid fear of the real world.
I can see why theology professors don't have to take the oath anymore.
Otherwise historical-critical exegesis wouldn't have made the progress it
has made since the late sixties... No wonder the Protestants have always
been better at it...
> "Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a
> professor lecturing or writing on an 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
> he should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers
> solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority,
> and with the same liberty of judgement that is common in the
> investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
Daniel
Daniel Höhr
> "Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a
> professor lecturing or writing on an 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
> he should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers
> solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority,
> and with the same liberty of judgement that is common in the
> investigation of all ordinary historical documents.
Do you want to know that bit was included? Historical-critical exegesis
might have brought results to light, which would have *demolished* some
of the Church's favourite teachings and then it would have been very,
very tricky for the Church to explain some of their dogmas, that are
contrary to what Scripture tells us...
Actually, the results of historical-critical exegesis will in the long
term influence the Church's teachings. If not in this century, then in
the next...
Today, Catholic theology professors make their students learn Hebrew and
Greek before they can do anything else. Then they teach their students
the methods of exegesis. And although you should never forget that you're
working on Biblical texts, the methods are very, very dry. It's a science
after all.
Exegesis has brought to light, that Mary's virginity is likely to be down
to a bad translation.
What would Pius X think of that?
dh
Stephanie Rendino
Eochaidh) wrote:
>Because of the present confusion and scandals in the Church, I
>have decided to take the Oath against Modernism,
How nice for you.
Legatus
Rendino <bea...@nospam.sympatico.ca> wrote:
Hehehehe. I had a feeling you'd show up for this one. :)
Steve
Stephanie Rendino
wrote:
For obvious reasons. I'd be very wary of taking a 19th century oath
intended on curbing my intellectual honesty.
Mcc6050
>Because of the present confusion and scandals in the Church, I
>have decided to take the Oath against Modernism <snip>
Very generous and stalwart of you. I'm sure your oath-taking has done so much
to resolve the scandals plaguing the RCC.
Mac
Caillean McMahon
This organization opposes separation of Church and State and wants to
restore a Catholic Monarchy. Thanks , No.
Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
Legatus
<cail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sean Mac Eochaidh wrote:
> > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.caughey
>
> This organization opposes separation of Church and State and wants to
> restore a Catholic Monarchy. Thanks , No.
And that I am all for. Where the heck do I sign up? Oh carp, it's for
Irish nationals only... nits.
Look yer ladyship, a *proper* Catholic monarchy would seriously rock! I
get goosebumps just thinking about it.
Before you get all worked up... just think about this: an end to
puritanism in all of its vile forms.
450 years of protestantism has cast an evil and unjust shadow over
Christendom, warped the mindsets of modern Catholics and destroyed the
ideals of western civilization.
Which do you want: a society of festivals and holy-days, high art and
higher culture, fine wine and epic ballads, a land where Thomas Aquinas
AND Oscar Wilde can rub elbows, or no days off, no art, nothing to
drink, nothing to sing about and Wilde is taken out and shot?
In brief, which do you want, Rome or Geneva?
I want Rome, and I'd rather have you dancing in Rome than rotting in a
Genevan cell.
A truly Catholic monarchy might laugh at you... a puritan state would
lock you up before shoving a stake up your backside and lighting it on
fire.
Steve (Long live the king!)
Unworthy
Legatus wrote:
In article <3CB3BADD...@yahoo.com>, Caillean McMahon
<cail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
450 years of protestantism has cast an evil and unjust shadow over
Christendom, warped the mindsets of modern Catholics and destroyed the
ideals of western civilization.
Your faith is the oldest and first Protestantism. It is your faith that sought its own self-will and it is your faith that gave birth to the reformation. They, the protestants, are the illegitimate children from the young mother who ran away from home.
Here, do your self a favor and spend a little time with this short article
of which the first paragraph I will quote here. This was written by a holy
man who in his purity should not be taken lightly. A link for this
article below...
In the European West, Christianity has gradually transformed into humanism.
For a long time and arduously, the God-Man diminished, and has been changed,
narrowed, and finally
reduced to a man: to the infallible man in Rome and the equally "infallible"
man in London and Berlin. Thus did papism come into being, taking everything
from Christ, along with
Protestantism, which asks the least from Christ, and often nothing.
Both in papism and in Protestantism, man has been put in the place of
the God-Man, both as the highest value and as
the highest criterion. A painful and sad correction of the God-Man's
work and teaching has been accomplished. Steadily and stubbornly papism
has tried to substitute the God-Man with
man, until in the dogma about the infallibility of the popeóa man,
the God-Man was once and for all replaced with ephemeral, "infallible"
man; because with this dogma, the pope was
decisively and clearly declared as something higher than not only
man, but the holy Apostles, the holy Fathers, and the holy Ecumenical councils.
With this kind of a departure from the
God-Man, from the ecumenical Church as the God-Man organism, papism
surpassed Luther, the founder of Protestantism. Thus, the first
radical protest in the name of humanism against
the God-Man Christ, and his God-Man organismóthe Churchóshould be
looked for in papism, not in Lutheranism. Papism is actually the first
and the oldest Protestantism.
Papism as the Oldest Protestantism, by the Blessed Fr.
Caillean McMahon
Steve; given that choice, Rome in a second. But why not a Wiccan
monarchy? We have even better festivals.
Brightest Blessings;
Caillean `aSiobhan, Lady Carrigaholt
Legatus
<cail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Legatus wrote:
> > Which do you want: a society of festivals and holy-days, high art and
> > higher culture, fine wine and epic ballads, a land where Thomas Aquinas
> > AND Oscar Wilde can rub elbows, or no days off, no art, nothing to
> > drink, nothing to sing about and Wilde is taken out and shot?
> >
> > In brief, which do you want, Rome or Geneva?
> >
> > I want Rome, and I'd rather have you dancing in Rome than rotting in a
> > Genevan cell.
> >
> > A truly Catholic monarchy might laugh at you... a puritan state would
> > lock you up before shoving a stake up your backside and lighting it on
> > fire.
> >
> > Steve (Long live the king!)
> Steve; given that choice, Rome in a second. But why not a Wiccan
> monarchy?
Well obviously because I'm a Catholic. :) And I know what Christendom
can do on its best day... I want it back.
> We have even better festivals.
Clearly this is a challenge. :)
Here's an idea... what major law(s) would you abolish/enact if you were
queen? Mainly those changes that would make a radical difference in
society...
For example, my "kingdom" would allow lawyers to practice their
profession... but they couldn't be paid for it. :)
Usury would be a capital crime. No interest permitted on non-productive
loans (homes, cars, etc) and 30% of loans made by lendors must be those
type of loans. But there wouldn't be a cap on interest for commercial
loans.
Taxation would be by way of voluntary contract riders and low tariffs
on import/export.
But what makes this kingdom Catholic? Charitable functions normally
handled by the government would be entirely turned over to the Church.
Ditto education. The justice of the law would be balanced by the mercy
of the sovereign (that would be me). Punishment would either be exile
or the lash (no more prisons).
Holy days and major feasts would be major affairs paid for by the king
with the goal of one 3 day blow out per month.
That's just a start, and completely off the cuff... Now, what would you
do?
Steve
Stephanie Rendino
wrote:
>In article <3CB3BADD...@yahoo.com>, Caillean McMahon
><cail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Sean Mac Eochaidh wrote:
>
>> > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.caughey
>>
>> This organization opposes separation of Church and State and wants to
>> restore a Catholic Monarchy. Thanks , No.
>
>And that I am all for. Where the heck do I sign up? Oh carp, it's for
>Irish nationals only... nits.
>
>Look yer ladyship, a *proper* Catholic monarchy would seriously rock! I
>get goosebumps just thinking about it.
They have it in Spain.
>
>Before you get all worked up... just think about this: an end to
>puritanism in all of its vile forms.
>
>450 years of protestantism has cast an evil and unjust shadow over
>Christendom, warped the mindsets of modern Catholics and destroyed the
>ideals of western civilization.
>
>Which do you want: a society of festivals and holy-days, high art and
>higher culture, fine wine and epic ballads, a land where Thomas Aquinas
>AND Oscar Wilde can rub elbows, or no days off, no art, nothing to
>drink, nothing to sing about and Wilde is taken out and shot?
>
>In brief, which do you want, Rome or Geneva?
I choose....Ottawa. Thanks.
Legatus
<kee...@netnitco.net> wrote:
> Legatus wrote:
>
> > In article <3CB3BADD...@yahoo.com>, Caillean McMahon
> > <cail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 450 years of protestantism has cast an evil and unjust shadow over
> > Christendom, warped the mindsets of modern Catholics and destroyed the
> > ideals of western civilization.
>
> Your faith is the oldest and first Protestantism. It is your faith that
> sought its own self-will and it is your faith that gave birth to the
> reformation. They, the protestants, are the illegitimate children from the
> young mother who ran away from home.
>
> Here, do your self a favor and spend a little time with this short article
> of which the first paragraph I will quote here. This was written by a holy
> man who in his purity should not be taken lightly. A link for this article
> below...
While it was interesting to see the (presumably) greek POV, the latin
position is equally developed. And culturally I'll take the west over
the east any day of the week. We've got our own holy men after all. We
simply aren't going to agree on this.
Steve
fj...@hotmail.com
> In article <3CB3BADD...@yahoo.com>, Caillean McMahon
> <cail...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Sean Mac Eochaidh wrote:
>
> > > http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.caughey
> >
> > This organization opposes separation of Church and State and wants to
> > restore a Catholic Monarchy. Thanks , No.
>
> And that I am all for. Where the heck do I sign up? Oh carp, it's for
> Irish nationals only... nits.
>
> Look yer ladyship, a *proper* Catholic monarchy would seriously rock! I
> get goosebumps just thinking about it.
>
> Before you get all worked up... just think about this: an end to
> puritanism in all of its vile forms.
>
> 450 years of protestantism has cast an evil and unjust shadow over
> Christendom, warped the mindsets of modern Catholics and destroyed the
> ideals of western civilization.
>
> Which do you want: a society of festivals and holy-days, high art and
> higher culture, fine wine and epic ballads, a land where Thomas Aquinas
> AND Oscar Wilde can rub elbows, or no days off, no art, nothing to
> drink, nothing to sing about and Wilde is taken out and shot?
>
> In brief, which do you want, Rome or Geneva?
Death to the tyrant!
To Hell with Geneva and Rome.
I want Athens.
Legatus
Rendino <bea...@nospam.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 01:00:13 -0400, Legatus <leg...@notcharter.not>
> wrote:
> >Look yer ladyship, a *proper* Catholic monarchy would seriously rock! I
> >get goosebumps just thinking about it.
>
> They have it in Spain.
A pale reflection of a once glorious civilization... sad.
> >In brief, which do you want, Rome or Geneva?
>
> I choose....Ottawa. Thanks.
Ottawa isn't on the list, sorry. :)
Steve
Stephanie Rendino
>Legatus <leg...@notcharter.not> wrote in message news:<100420020100133098%leg...@notcharter.not>...
>> In article <3CB3BADD...@yahoo.com>, Caillean McMahon
>> In brief, which do you want, Rome or Geneva?
>> Steve (Long live the king!)
>
>Death to the tyrant!
>
>To Hell with Geneva and Rome.
>
>I want Athens.
In Athens, women couldn't vote, nor could men who didn't own land.
Let's keep moving forward in time.
Legatus
Rendino <bea...@nospam.sympatico.ca> wrote:
I'm all for that (not the women part, the LAND part). One of my pet
theories is that only land owners should be taxed... and I held that
position LONG before I became one. I'd even go so far to suggest that
only owners of PRODUCTIVE (commericial) land should be taxed, so that'd
put me back off the voting roles.
Steve (the people are revolting... and they smell funny too)
Unworthy
Legatus wrote:
While it was interesting to see the (presumably) greek POV, the latin
position is equally developed. And culturally I'll take the west over
the east any day of the week. We've got our own holy men after all. We
simply aren't going to agree on this.Steve
That's another thing. There were no divisions of Greek East and Latin West.
This was a deception cooked up by King Charlemagne(sp?). There was a Northern
Greek band and Celtic Southern band. Latin Christianity came from Africa
and was Orthodox in spirit. And if you want to talk about Greek who do
think the primitive Romans were? They were a collection of Greek colonies.
The Lacedmonians, Sabines, Trojans and Achadians. They spoke a Greek dialect.
It was Aolic Greek. The liturgies in Rome were Greek for the first four
centuries. Even your misnomer, Catholic, is Greek. Do you want to
compare holy men?
A
Comparison: Francis of Assisi and St. Seraphim of Sarov
This argument you say we won't agree on is so simple it's pathetic. If you have one group whom we'll call A and another group we will call B and if both of these groups claims to have been there two thousand years then all we have to do is to compare both groups with what was believed since the beginning. If the early church believed as A then B can have no claim to apostolicity. Your doctrines of purgatory, deifying Mary, infallibility and supremacy are not what the early church believed. In fact they are heretical doctrines coming from having incorrect understanding and this because of being separated from the the True Holy Tradition. Your faith believes in the light of Christ at His transfiguration is created light Orthodoxy correctly understands it as Uncreated light. This and other theological points which are crucial to having correct doctrine have been forgotten by the Roman church.
Here's another good read even if your church calls it a forgery. Of course they would because they can't argue the points in it. It is speech attributed to Bishop Strossmayer in the Vatican Council I over the heretical doctrine of infallibility. It is said so often by those in the Roman church that this speech is a forgery but none the less, they don't counterpoint what the speech is saying. Bishop Strossmayer's Speech - 1870
Legatus
<kee...@netnitco.net> wrote:
> Legatus wrote:
>
> >
> > While it was interesting to see the (presumably) greek POV, the latin
> > position is equally developed. And culturally I'll take the west over
> > the east any day of the week. We've got our own holy men after all. We
> > simply aren't going to agree on this.
> >
> > Steve
-snippage-
> This argument you say we won't agree on is so simple it's pathetic.
NO, it was an attempt to "play nice". (so much for being nice) WE ARE
NOT GOING TO AGREE ON THIS (BECAUSE YOU ARE BLIND OR MENTALLY
CRIPPLED). I have no interest in another east/west war on usenet. A
roman could tell you the sky was blue and you'd disagree just because a
roman said it. To paraphrase a line in "Triumph" by Crocker, Some of us
still think the Sack of Constantinople should be a feast day on the
Roman Calendar.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but most of us simply don't care
anymore. Eastern Orthodoxy is rapidly becoming the "crazy old cat lady"
of the Christian Family and it is high time the old cow just took a
nap. So knock yerself out, I'm not interested, and I'm not listening...
Go convert a brick wall. You may have valid Sacraments, but the whole
bally lot of you seem to be turning into hysterical old spinsters.
Steve
nobody special
> I have no interest in another east/west war on usenet. A
> roman could tell you the sky was blue and you'd disagree just because a
good book! :-)
Legatus
nobody special <nos...@nospam4me.com> wrote:
Ain't it though! Chapter 14 is SOOOO much fun to read.
Steve
nobody special
"Legatus" <leg...@notcharter.not> wrote in message
Yep! There's a great comment about Leo X in that chapter- "But it is the
frequent misfortune of tolerant, high-minded, and far-seeing men to be
attacked by petty, narrow, and ruthless ones who generally have mobs at
their sides." Reminds me of this newsgroup at times. :-)
Overall, the book reminds me a lot of Hilaire Belloc but with a little more
humor.
Legatus
nobody special <nos...@nospam4me.com> wrote:
> "Legatus" <leg...@notcharter.not> wrote in message
> news:150420022145527509%leg...@notcharter.not...
> > In article <YgLu8.51353$GS6.5...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>,
> > nobody special <nos...@nospam4me.com> wrote:
> >
> > > (snipped)
> > > > I have no interest in another east/west war on usenet. A
> > > > roman could tell you the sky was blue and you'd disagree just because
> a
> > > > roman said it. To paraphrase a line in "Triumph" by Crocker...
> > >
> > > good book! :-)
> >
> > Ain't it though! Chapter 14 is SOOOO much fun to read.
>
> Yep! There's a great comment about Leo X in that chapter- "But it is the
> frequent misfortune of tolerant, high-minded, and far-seeing men to be
> attacked by petty, narrow, and ruthless ones who generally have mobs at
> their sides." Reminds me of this newsgroup at times. :-)
>
> Overall, the book reminds me a lot of Hilaire Belloc but with a little more
> humor.
It is a great read, and yes it certainly has the style of Belloc. Sort
of an unapologetic apologetic. Almost every page seems to have a line
worth quoting. I hope it gets a fairly wide audience.
Steve