FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: CCD Teachers Required to Take Oath of Fidelity
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
I have a friend who taught Catechism in the north Virginia area, but not anymore. The diocese requires them to take an oath of fidelity to the Magisterium if they want to teach catechism. She feels she can't because she believes in women priests and contraception (she's a modernist, but she's still my friend). It's a pretty serious thing in the Church when catechism teachers are not willing to uphold the Doctrine of the Faith to the point that they have to exact an oath from them. How did she get into such a teaching position with her views?  :O

Has anyone heard of this oath of fidelity being required in other dioceses? I haven't heard about it here in Seattle.
First I heard of any diocese asking for an oath of fidelity is this. I mentioned in a post the other day. Sounds good to me.

tim
I'm glad it's happening and I see from the press coverage some other outraged liberals are resigning. That can't be bad.

C.
I saw this on Rorate Caeli a few days ago.

While at first it seems great, I think we should pause.

What is contained in the oath, precisely?
-Does it contain VII "dogmas" about religious liberty, the status of heretics and other religions, etc.?

How will it be enforced?
-What canonical structure governs it?
-What is the penalty for transgressing the oath?
-How will suspects be investigated?

Sounds great to me too Tim!!
(07-18-2012, 08:18 PM)MRose Wrote: [ -> ]I saw this on Rorate Caeli a few days ago.

While at first it seems great, I think we should pause.

What is contained in the oath, precisely?
-Does it contain VII "dogmas" about religious liberty, the status of heretics and other religions, etc.?

How will it be enforced?
-What canonical structure governs it?
-What is the penalty for transgressing the oath?
-How will suspects be investigated?

In the north Virginia diocese, there is some wording about following the direction of the bishop and the Holy Father. My only question to that is what happens when your bishop comes in conflict with the Holy Father?

Here in Seattle, I have heard nothing about any oath requirement from Archbishop Sartain. He is a very cautious man, and has been very amiable to the FSSP priests here, so I don't think following his direction would be too problematic for traditionalists.
(07-18-2012, 08:29 PM)10th_Crusader Wrote: [ -> ]In the north Virginia diocese, there is some wording about following the direction of the bishop and the Holy Father. My only question to that is what happens when your bishop comes in conflict with the Holy Father?

Probably nothing. He practices collegiality.

(07-18-2012, 08:29 PM)10th_Crusader Wrote: [ -> ]Here in Seattle, I have heard nothing about any oath requirement from Archbishop Sartain. He is a very cautious man, and has been very amiable to the FSSP priests here, so I don't think following his direction would be too problematic for traditionalists.

Amiability toward the FSSP is great, but does he not do anything other than be amiable toward the FSSP? I thought I had heard that the Archdiocese of Seattle is more liberal than most. Trads should care about more than just how the FSSP is treated, although that is important.
Speaking of oaths, I wonder if anyone would take this one:

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, 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.
(07-18-2012, 10:27 PM)MRose Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-18-2012, 08:29 PM)10th_Crusader Wrote: [ -> ]In the north Virginia diocese, there is some wording about following the direction of the bishop and the Holy Father. My only question to that is what happens when your bishop comes in conflict with the Holy Father?

Probably nothing. He practices collegiality.

(07-18-2012, 08:29 PM)10th_Crusader Wrote: [ -> ]Here in Seattle, I have heard nothing about any oath requirement from Archbishop Sartain. He is a very cautious man, and has been very amiable to the FSSP priests here, so I don't think following his direction would be too problematic for traditionalists.

Amiability toward the FSSP is great, but does he not do anything other than be amiable toward the FSSP? I thought I had heard that the Archdiocese of Seattle is more liberal than most. Trads should care about more than just how the FSSP is treated, although that is important.

It was pretty liberal under the last archbishop (mentally blocked his name), but Archbishop Sartrain has been pretty supportive of the TLM, as long as we don't scare the regulars away from church.  :LOL:
I was a CCD teacher, and I never encountered anything like this.  Pretty much all our preparation involved keeping anyone from getting sued.
Pages: 1 2