|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 16, 2023 4:30:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Mar 16, 2023 17:28:29 GMT
I'm not sure how many could now take it honestly. Modernism is pervasive among clergy nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Mar 18, 2023 1:48:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 18, 2023 3:09:04 GMT
This is all well and good, but why was the Oath Against Modernism no longer required? Let me guess, Modernism quit being a problem. It just vanished or something. Is that right? Or maybe it never was a problem, it was a "phantom heresy" like Americanism. Am I getting warm? (Actually, Leo XIII wasn't that far off the mark, truth be told. Americans did, and do, exalt the active over the passive and contemplative. It is very, very hard to explain to an American why the Church needs contemplative monks and nuns spending their days and nights in prayer and penance. These days, many would dismiss that as being autistic or something. Maybe these holy souls, doing penance for us all, are the only thing standing between all of us and our richly-deserved chastisements.)
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Mar 19, 2023 1:26:58 GMT
This is all well and good, but why was the Oath Against Modernism no longer required? Let me guess, Modernism quit being a problem. It just vanished or something. Is that right? Or maybe it never was a problem, it was a "phantom heresy" like Americanism. Am I getting warm? (Actually, Leo XIII wasn't that far off the mark, truth be told. Americans did, and do, exalt the active over the passive and contemplative. It is very, very hard to explain to an American why the Church needs contemplative monks and nuns spending their days and nights in prayer and penance. These days, many would dismiss that as being autistic or something. Maybe these holy souls, doing penance for us all, are the only thing standing between all of us and our richly-deserved chastisements.) Replaced by the Congregation with the Professio Fidei.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 19, 2023 4:46:30 GMT
This is all well and good, but why was the Oath Against Modernism no longer required? Let me guess, Modernism quit being a problem. It just vanished or something. Is that right? Or maybe it never was a problem, it was a "phantom heresy" like Americanism. Am I getting warm? (Actually, Leo XIII wasn't that far off the mark, truth be told. Americans did, and do, exalt the active over the passive and contemplative. It is very, very hard to explain to an American why the Church needs contemplative monks and nuns spending their days and nights in prayer and penance. These days, many would dismiss that as being autistic or something. Maybe these holy souls, doing penance for us all, are the only thing standing between all of us and our richly-deserved chastisements.) Replaced by the Congregation with the Professio Fidei.
So this answers the first question, viz. priests don't take the OAM anymore, because it has been replaced. Perhaps the question should be "why did the Church replace the OAM with the Professio Fidei (which does not mention Modernism)?". Or better yet, "why was an oath against Modernism not included in the Professio Fidei?".
|
|
|
Post by tisbearself on Mar 19, 2023 12:49:29 GMT
I don't think you're ever going to get one concrete answer to this, given that the Vatican chose not to provide any reasoning in the 1967 document making the change or, to my knowledge, in any official document afterwards. There also seems to be a dearth of actual scholarship on this particular issue of why (like, nobody is uncovering any hidden Vatican communications or first-hand accounts from contemporary clergy), so we're left with encyclopedias basically saying it was rescinded without giving any reason, and blogs full of people giving their largely unsupported opinions.
I can make some guesses to add to the "largely unsupported opinions" pile: 1) What Ridge said - modernism is pervasive now, the modernists essentially "won". Many of the cardinals like Merry Del Val who had taken a hard line against modernism were deceased. Certain "modernist" things that had been initially regarded as threatening to the Church, such as historical-critical Bible study and Darwin's theory of evolution, were no longer a big concern.
2) The oath was difficult to meaningfully enforce. The Church was already handing out free pass dispensations from the Oath to clerics left and right for years, most notably to German priests who were also theologians/ professors and would have been precluded by University or other rules from doing their jobs if they had had to take such an oath. The people who actually got punished by excommunication or threats of same tended to be so far out in left field that the Church could probably have busted them under the abbreviated statement of faith or for something else.
3) The oath was too long and open to all sorts of argument and ambiguity. Long, unclear oaths and regulations tend to be unworkable in practice because there are too many words and meanings to argue about. See (2) above.
Personally I think even the word "Modernism" would need some kind of concise, clear legal definition. There does not seem to be any clarity or mass agreement on what it even is/ was. I suspect many of the clerics who took this oath and were not themselves theologians or professors didn't have much of a clue as to what they were swearing past the basic concept of "follow the official Church teachings and defer to the authority of my superiors and ultimately the Holy See."
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 19, 2023 18:05:24 GMT
I don't think you're ever going to get one concrete answer to this, given that the Vatican chose not to provide any reasoning in the 1967 document making the change or, to my knowledge, in any official document afterwards. There also seems to be a dearth of actual scholarship on this particular issue of why (like, nobody is uncovering any hidden Vatican communications or first-hand accounts from contemporary clergy), so we're left with encyclopedias basically saying it was rescinded without giving any reason, and blogs full of people giving their largely unsupported opinions. I can make some guesses to add to the "largely unsupported opinions" pile: 1) What Ridge said - modernism is pervasive now, the modernists essentially "won". Many of the cardinals like Merry Del Val who had taken a hard line against modernism were deceased. Certain "modernist" things that had been initially regarded as threatening to the Church, such as historical-critical Bible study and Darwin's theory of evolution, were no longer a big concern. 2) The oath was difficult to meaningfully enforce. The Church was already handing out free pass dispensations from the Oath to clerics left and right for years, most notably to German priests who were also theologians/ professors and would have been precluded by University or other rules from doing their jobs if they had had to take such an oath. The people who actually got punished by excommunication or threats of same tended to be so far out in left field that the Church could probably have busted them under the abbreviated statement of faith or for something else. 3) The oath was too long and open to all sorts of argument and ambiguity. Long, unclear oaths and regulations tend to be unworkable in practice because there are too many words and meanings to argue about. See (2) above. Personally I think even the word "Modernism" would need some kind of concise, clear legal definition. There does not seem to be any clarity or mass agreement on what it even is/ was. I suspect many of the clerics who took this oath and were not themselves theologians or professors didn't have much of a clue as to what they were swearing past the basic concept of "follow the official Church teachings and defer to the authority of my superiors and ultimately the Holy See." WRT your last paragraph, short answer, Pascendi dominici gregis (Pius X), though while it may be clear, is surely not concise, ditto for Quanta cura (Pius IX) and the Syllabus Errorum. As to the other points, you're probably right. Got to wonder if a future Pope John XXIV, or John Paul III, or Francis II, is going to excommunicate everyone who assists at Mass according to an abrogated Tridentine Missale Romanum, and to issue a "syllabus of errors [sic] of the indietrists", or something like that. All I can say is, they can't shut down the Internet, and there are more than a few people in the world who actually have critical reasoning skills. They wouldn't be silenced.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Mar 20, 2023 6:03:27 GMT
Replaced by the Congregation with the Professio Fidei.
So this answers the first question, viz. priests don't take the OAM anymore, because it has been replaced. Perhaps the question should be "why did the Church replace the OAM with the Professio Fidei (which does not mention Modernism)?". Or better yet, "why was an oath against Modernism not included in the Professio Fidei?".
I think it's because the Church realized that some aspects of modernism, like industrialization needed to avert poverty, are beneficial.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 20, 2023 6:10:48 GMT
So this answers the first question, viz. priests don't take the OAM anymore, because it has been replaced. Perhaps the question should be "why did the Church replace the OAM with the Professio Fidei (which does not mention Modernism)?". Or better yet, "why was an oath against Modernism not included in the Professio Fidei?".
I think it's because the Church realized that some aspects of modernism, like industrialization needed to avert poverty, are beneficial.
"Modernism" here refers to theological concepts, and more precisely, to a specific heresy, not developments in modern technology, industry, science, and so on. Two different things entirely.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Mar 21, 2023 5:53:38 GMT
The definition of modernism is given here: www.britannica.com/event/Modernism-Roman-CatholicismNew discoveries about Scriptures and conclusions raised by various experts, like claims that the Exodus did not take place, scientific theories during the second half of the twentieth century that put to question even the ideas of a conscience, the notion of overpopulation plus severe ecological damage that pose existential threats to humanity and how to address them without going against Church teachings, and more not only partly challenge the central authority of the Church, they are also part of science, industrialization, and the modern world. I'm guessing that the bewildering speed in which these now post-modernist changes have been affecting many is what prompted the Church to go back to the Catholic symbol of faith.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 21, 2023 14:57:23 GMT
The definition of modernism is given here: www.britannica.com/event/Modernism-Roman-CatholicismNew discoveries about Scriptures and conclusions raised by various experts, like claims that the Exodus did not take place, scientific theories during the second half of the twentieth century that put to question even the ideas of a conscience, the notion of overpopulation plus severe ecological damage that pose existential threats to humanity and how to address them without going against Church teachings, and more not only partly challenge the central authority of the Church, they are also part of science, industrialization, and the modern world. I'm guessing that the bewildering speed in which these now post-modernist changes have been affecting many is what prompted the Church to go back to the Catholic symbol of faith. I'm not clear on what you mean in your final comment. Are you suggesting that perhaps these "post-modernist changes" are the reason (or at least one set of reasons) why the Mass was revised and simplified, that the 1969+ Missal was a return to the "Catholic symbol of faith"? Or are you talking about something else when you use the term "Catholic symbol of faith"? And if that was the case, what does that then say about the Tridentine missal? That it was not this symbol, or at least was a lesser or inferior version of it? (Not agreeing with this, just attempting to understand the reasoning.)
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Mar 22, 2023 2:40:44 GMT
The definition of modernism is given here: www.britannica.com/event/Modernism-Roman-CatholicismNew discoveries about Scriptures and conclusions raised by various experts, like claims that the Exodus did not take place, scientific theories during the second half of the twentieth century that put to question even the ideas of a conscience, the notion of overpopulation plus severe ecological damage that pose existential threats to humanity and how to address them without going against Church teachings, and more not only partly challenge the central authority of the Church, they are also part of science, industrialization, and the modern world. I'm guessing that the bewildering speed in which these now post-modernist changes have been affecting many is what prompted the Church to go back to the Catholic symbol of faith. I'm not clear on what you mean in your final comment. Are you suggesting that perhaps these "post-modernist changes" are the reason (or at least one set of reasons) why the Mass was revised and simplified, that the 1969+ Missal was a return to the "Catholic symbol of faith"? Or are you talking about something else when you use the term "Catholic symbol of faith"? And if that was the case, what does that then say about the Tridentine missal? That it was not this symbol, or at least was a lesser or inferior version of it? (Not agreeing with this, just attempting to understand the reasoning.)
Modernism involves not only assertions against the Church but scientific discoveries driving those assertions, and those discoveries increased significantly long after the OAM and has led to more questions about not only Catholicism but even religion. That's probably why the Church responded by returning to the Catholic symbol of faith, which is the Apostle's Creed.
What about the EF? According to the Church, it's a product of liturgy studies, which includes discoveries of ancient liturgies. Across the centuries, there were more discoveries, which led to the OF, which is also a product of liturgy studies. This was discussed in another thread.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 22, 2023 4:46:55 GMT
I'm not clear on what you mean in your final comment. Are you suggesting that perhaps these "post-modernist changes" are the reason (or at least one set of reasons) why the Mass was revised and simplified, that the 1969+ Missal was a return to the "Catholic symbol of faith"? Or are you talking about something else when you use the term "Catholic symbol of faith"? And if that was the case, what does that then say about the Tridentine missal? That it was not this symbol, or at least was a lesser or inferior version of it? (Not agreeing with this, just attempting to understand the reasoning.)
Modernism involves not only assertions against the Church but scientific discoveries driving those assertions, and those discoveries increased significantly long after the OAM and has led to more questions about not only Catholicism but even religion. That's probably why the Church responded by returning to the Catholic symbol of faith, which is the Apostle's Creed.
What about the EF? According to the Church, it's a product of liturgy studies, which includes discoveries of ancient liturgies. Across the centuries, there were more discoveries, which led to the OF, which is also a product of liturgy studies. This was discussed in another thread.
Okay, I see, but the Church always had the Apostles' Creed, so there was nothing to "return" to. WRT the EF and the OF, the Tridentine missal was promulgated in 1570 to bring uniformity to what had been, up until that time, a plethora of different forms of the Roman missal, all more similar than different, but still in need of standardization. The Novus Ordo Missae was not in response to any such diversity, indeed, from 1570 to 1969, changes in the Mass were virtually nil. Whatever it was, whatever good or ill can be said of it (perceptions vary), one thing it cannot be called is "organic development". Organic development, of liturgy or of anything else, religious or secular, of its nature happens very slowly. OTOH, the NOM came in one fell swoop, with a kind of transitional missal in 1965, which only lasted four years.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Mar 23, 2023 0:16:42 GMT
"Return to" in place of the OAM.
I think organic development no longer took place during the 1960s because of various technologies that allowed people to share information quickly, etc. It's ironically one aspect of modernism, where many things move or take place a lot faster.
|
|