False Fidelity: How Modernists Invoke Oaths They Trample

 

Preamble

It is amusing to see that a Modernist enthusiast could watch an uncompromising Catholic, styled sedevacantist, recite the Creed integrally, with attention and devotion, and still object—not because it’s false, but because it wasn’t approved by the Ecumenical, Synodal, Pan-Religious Suggestion Committee. They hate the truth not for what it says, but for who dares say it and what relationship it has towards the Modernist agenda.

On the 27th of June, I shared another infographic file of “Under the Mantle”. It was a memorial post, stating that on that day 1973, the then Modernist Papal Impostor, “Paul VI”, 

“falsely abolishes ‘’The Profession of Faith’’ and “Oath Against Modernism” required for clerics in Major Orders, imposed by Pope St. Pius X.  

Attach led to the infographic file were the following words: 

Take the Oath, hold the Faith, reject the synthesis of heresies—and they call you the Protestant. The irony writes itself. 

Will they ever wake up?!

Kyrie Eleison!!!

Edifying for Catholics, intolerable to Modernists—the post drew, as expected, my timeline's most faithful troll, wielding mendacity like a badge of honor. 

Here, we’ll unmask his historical ignorance, his lack of even basic knowledge about the principles of sacramental validity, and his laughable defense of the abolition of the Oath Against Modernism—ironically built on accusing Sedevacantists of refusing to swear allegiance to Modernist papal impostors.

The Modernist Enthusiast's Take 

The first comment went thus:

Since November 30th, 722, St Boniface began the requirement that Bishops receiving the episcopal concentration must take an oath of allegiance to the Pope.

SEDES refuse that oath. SEDES invalid and illicit rituals (not consecrations)

He had made the same comment, same wording, on some previous posts. We would not be wrong to suspect that it is for him some sort of a treasured silver bullet! Or would we?

The second comment was: 

OATHS?

Wilt thou uniformly render to Peter, the blessed Apostle, to whom by God was given the power of binding and loosening, and to his Vicar Leo, and to his successors, the Bishops of Rome, fidelity, subjection, and obedience, according to the injunctions of the Canons?

On St. Boniface's Oath 

It should be quickly noted that  the oath introduced by St. Boniface in 722 was a disciplinary safeguard to curb abuses. It was neither a universal dogmatic principle, nor a requirement for the validity of episcopal consecration.

 Validity depends on matter, form, intention, and valid orders—not oaths. 

Sedevacantists do not reject the papacy—they reject false claimants who abolished the Oath Against Modernism while demanding allegiance to their Modernist revolution. That’s not fidelity to Peter—it’s betrayal in Peter’s name.

Now, Sedevacantists use the traditional Roman Pontifical, definitively codified by Pope Pius XII in Sacramentum Ordinis (1947). They possess valid episcopal lineage, and have correct sacramental intention. Everything required for validity. 

We see therefore in this fellow's reply a show of gross historical ignorance and  dearth of the basic knowledge of sacramental validity. It's a shame. Isn't it? 

A Most Ironic Appeal from Those Who Betrayed Peter

This Modernist enthusiast lifts a solemn oath from the ancient episcopal rites:

 “Wilt thou render fidelity… to Peter, and to his Vicar, the Bishop of Rome…?”

Quite noble a quote! Quite resounding.

But no one in his rightly informed Catholic common sense would doubt how hollow it is when proclaimed by one: 

• who spits upon the doctrines of Blessed Peter through Modernist indifferentism
• who glories in rupture, and 
• who rejoices in the abrogation of the very oath which St. Pius X crafted to defend the Faith of Blessed Peter against the syllogisms of Satan. 

Pope St. Pius X wrote in Sacrorum Antistitum (1910):

 “We ordain by this present motu proprio, that all professors... and all clergy... shall be bound by this oath without exception, and shall retain it inviolably...”

 Yet "Paul VI", the then Modernist’s hero, quietly abolished it in 1967 without even a doctrinal justification. And now 

• They appeal to an oath of obedience while mocking the Oath Against the very errors they have welcomed and promote boldly as Catholic doctrines. 
• They appeal to an oath that is canonical and regards external government, while the abrogation of that which is doctrinal and concerns interior Faith is hailed. 
• They appeal to an oath which presumes a true, legitimate Pope exists, while ridiculing that which defends the orthodoxy of doctrine and must always be upheld.

How best can we describe this attitude? It is like a man who burns down the palace of a king and then lectures the loyal guards on the virtue of obeying the throne. 

The Great Irony: They Broke The Oath First.

The Modernist cries: “You refuse obedience to Peter!”

But let us reply:

• Who enthroned heretics in seminaries and pulpits?
• Who overturned Quanta Cura, the Syllabus, Mortalium Animos?
•  Who replaced the Sacrifice of the Altar with a protestantized supper table?
• Who changed the words of Christ Himself in the consecration of the chalice?
• Who canonized enemies of the Catholic Faith?
• Who said the Church of Christ subsists in heretical sects?
• And who, finally, refused the oath against Modernism—the oath that St. Pius X required precisely to defend the Apostolic Faith?

Someone left this comment on the same post that drew the attention of the Modernist enthusiast is question: 

When an enemy occupation force takes over your government, the first thing they will do is eliminate all laws and practices you enacted to protect your people from them.

And that is exactly what the occupation force of the most pernicious of the adversaries of the Church - Modernists, did: eliminating all the laws and practices enacted to protect Catholic faithful from them.

Important to note is that, abolishing the Oath Against Modernism was not an abrupt break but a culmination of a shift initiated by apostate Roncalli’s philosophy. In his opening address to the  pretended Modernist Second Vatican Council (October 11, 1962) he said:

The Church has always opposed errors. Nowadays, however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than the weapons of severity.

In abrogating the "Oath Against Modernism", the Modernist Papal Impostor, Paul VI,  aligns directly with his predecessor in the Modernist imposture, "John XXIII", in his departure from severity towards claimed mercy. 

His statement wasn’t a slip of phrase but a theological orientation framing a broader Modernist pseudo ecclesial trend.  

Yes. The only reason cited for the Abrogation of the Oath Against Modernism is that it was "no longer suited to the spirit and direction of the Council", the "council" convoked by John XXIII and completed by Paul VI of course! 

 Defense of the Abrogation

Ask any modernist pseudo "theologian" or enthusiast today what he thinks about the "Oath Against Modernism" the following are the likely responses:

• The oath was too "defensive" and "negative"
• It is "no longer necessary" in the new age of dialogue
• It reflected a "pre-conciliar mentality of fear" rather than the “aggiornamento” (updating) spirit of Vatican II

They make all believe that the Church’s official stance shifted from defending against Modernism to accommodating its key tendencies, including:

• Doctrinal development
• Liturgical innovation
• Ecumenical openness
• Subjectivist approaches to Revelation

Inverted Accusation: The Old Tactic

That we have here another case of inverted accusation is no surprise at all. 

Modernists and their enthusiasts are often guilty of inverted accusation — that is, they accuse uncompromising Catholics of the very errors they themselves commit, and which the foundation of their institutional identity.

Like the Pharisees who called Christ a blasphemer while blaspheming Truth Himself, 

• They cry “rigidity!” while rigidly enforcing their own novelties. 
• They charge faithful Catholics with schism, while they fracture unity by undermining doctrine; 
• They shout “intolerance!” while tolerating every heresy but the true Faith and intolerant of uncompromising Catholics.

Well, it is the old tactic: accuse the defender to cover the offense of the aggressor. Thus error hides behind the cloak of false charity, and truth is labeled the enemy of peace.

True Obedience

But Peter and John answering, said to them: If it be just, in the sight of God, to hear you rather than God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. (Acts 4:19-20)

True obedience is to Christ and Peter's Faith, not to Modernist ecclesiastical intruders. 

When the Sedevacantist refuses to render allegiance to a manifest Modernist heretic, he is not disobeying Peter, but defending Peter’s throne from unjust occupation.

Imagine a loyal knight who refuses to kneel to an imposter on the throne. Will the usurper’s partisans accuse him of rebellion? He replies:

 “I kneel only to the true king—and I wait for his return.”

Let us remind the Modernist and modernist enthusiasts that:

👉 It was they who discarded the solemn words:

 “I firmly hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the Apostles… in the same sense and always in the same meaning.”

👉 It was they who celebrate the removal of the Oath Against Modernism as a “pastoral update.”

👉 It is they who now use the language of “paradigm shifts,” “living tradition,” and “synodality” to unbind doctrine from truth.

Thus, when they appeal to an ancient oath of fidelity, it is the height of hypocrisy, like Judas quoting Scripture while selling the Lord. How gross! 

Summing Up:

We do not deny the true oath to Blessed Peter. We reject the mockery of obedience to wolves dressed in Peter’s robes.

Let the Modernists keep their toothless slogans.

By grace, we keep our Oath—and the Holy Faith it was sworn to defend.

On the eve on my ordination to the first Major Orders, the Sub-diaconate, like all the members of the remnant uncompromising Catholic clergy to-day, I pronounced these words solemnly in taking my Oath Against Modernism, and I meant it:

Accordingly, I will firmly retain the Faith of the Fathers and hold it to the last breath of life, believing with certainty in the charism of truth, which is, was and will always be in the episcopal succession from the Apostles; not so that what may seem better and more fitting to each age may be held, but so that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the Apostles from the beginning may never be believed or understood otherwise.

It is understandable if a Modernist or an obstinate modernist enthusiast is incapable of understanding their far-reaching import. It is understandable, and, it is pitiable.