Take the Oath (Even if You Don't Have to)

                                      +AMDG+


THE MASKED ANGEL:

As I write this in the middle of both the year-long prayers of St Bridget and renewing my consecration to the Virgin Mary as created by Louis de Montfort, I came across this idea and the more I've looked into it, the more it seems to be enforced. What idea would that be?
Before I reveal the idea, this needs to be stated first: it is often said that there are no new heretical teachings, but only old teachings taking on new forms, and none have caused the Church more troubles and cost more souls than the heresy known as modernism, which brings me to the idea that I have come across:
militant atheists today, far from being original, have nothing new or interesting to say.

How did I know this and for that matter, how can others know this? How often have we heard atheists say this or the equivalent of this:

The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences.

For that matter, how much evidence refutes this yet the notion persists?

Not enough evidence? Ok, how often have atheists claimed this?:
"No teaching in Christianity should be believed unless it can be proven by scientific tests."

This one is even worse because it fails on two counts: Christians have NEVER said science can be used to prove the notions true and there is no way they would ever say that because the notions are outside science's realm. Atheists might as well demand mathematical concepts be proven by social studies.

How many atheists have claimed truth is relative---or to put it another way, "truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him?" And yet they expect people to not notice their obvious logical hypocrisy?

Some more academic atheists have figured out a way to be more sneaky in trying to pass their ideas off as original. In one particular example, several authors have tried to prove Christianity was founded not by Jesus but Paul of Tarsus, arguing everything from dogmas being from Paul before the Church accepted them, to the expiatory death of Christ is Pauline in historical origin.

Speaking of history. atheists further say Christ did not exist in the historical sense and if Jesus did exist, He was nothing like the Gospels say, and especially not John's Gospel, which is nothing more than a mystical composition. 

Too bad Catholic schools in general have dropped the ball because if they as a whole were half-way descent, more people would notice the pattern in all the mentioned notions I've just looked at:

Each and every one of these is a condemned notion found in Lamentabili Sane Exitu, an encyclical written by St Pius X condemning modernism.....written in 1907!!!!

Does anyone reading this understand? Atheists nowadays are just regurgitating concepts no one took seriously over a century ago yet here we have people buying into them hook, line and sinker without question. 

St Pius deserves a whole lot more credit than most Catholic educators are willing to give him; he foresaw the problems modernism would have for the world and for the Church; he even went so far as to require anyone in Catholic education or who had any connection to teaching the faith to take an oath against modernism.

For reasons that still remain unknown to me, despite my best efforts, I can find no justification for why the oath was dropped in 1967. Can anyone say the Church is in better shape today than while the oath was still required?

It doesn't matter to me if the oath is not required anymore: if you are serious about learning your faith and teaching it to others, I suggest taking the oath...after learning what it asks of you, of course. I am sick of atheists trying to pass sick ideas and fresh ones but then again what else can we expect of people who are absolute morons?