Protestantism originated with ex-Catholic monk Martin Luther, who protested against Catholicism. He didn’t completely reject all the doctrines of Catholicism, but he did reject some of them.
Protestantism rapidly expanded into splinter groups and has since moved much further left in doctrine and practice than when Luther first broke away. It eventually led to the French Revolution to the Bolshevik Revolution. Its final end is Antichrist and the worship of self. Man becomes the final arbiter of truth.
Pope Pius XI declared on Jan. 26, 1923:
Like those brilliant examples of Christian perfection and wisdom to whom We have just referred, he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind. (Rerum Omnium Perturbationem – St. Francis De Sales)
If Protestantism is the beginning of the great apostasy foretold in Scripture, then the culmination of it is the Vatican praising, promoting, and promulgating Protestantism, which has ultimately led the Vatican into supporting Communism, Earth Worship, and Satanism.
When we Catholics denounce the Vatican 2 popes and religion as being not Catholic, we get accused of being Protestant by those of the Vatican 2 religion that support Protestantism and its disastrous effects.
The following 35 bullet points are a small example of the Protestantism in the Vatican 2 religion.
THE PRAISING OF PROTESTANTISM AND ITS FOUNDER
1. The Vatican’s Veneration of Arch-Heretic Martin Luther with a statue of him in the Vatican. [1]
2. The Vatican released a stamp in honor of Martin Luther on the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Revolt on Oct. 31, 2017. [2]
3. In 1983, John Paul II went to the Lutheran church in Rome for the 500th anniversary of Luther’s birth in his honor. [3]
4. On March 14, 2010, in the same Lutheran church in Rome, Benedict XVI preached on the anniversary of the joint declaration on justification with Luther’s heresy. [4]
5. On September 23, 2011, Benedict XVI presented Martin Luther as model for Catholics when he met with the Lutheran council in Erfurt, Germany, celebrated an ecumenical service in the chapel of the Lutheran monastery of St. Augustine, bowed towards their empty altar, and prayed alongside a woman bishop. [5]
6. Vatican claims Catholics can now recognize Martin Luther as a “Witness to the Gospel.” [6]
7. Francis celebrated the Protestant Revolt with the Lutherans in Sweden in 2016. [7]
8. My local priest told us that when he was in the novus ordo seminary, there was talk about canonizing Martin Luther. Tradition in Action asked the question: Will Luther Be the Next Canonized Saint? by Atila Sinke Guimaraes (traditioninaction.org)
THE PROMOTION OF PROTESTANT WORSHIP AND IMITATING IT
9. The Novus Ordo Missae (new mass) promulgated by Paul VI was concocted by 6 Protestants, which resembles both Luther’s and Cramner’s services. [8] Paul VI publicly thanked them for their assistance in re-editing in a new manner liturgical texts … so that the lex orandi (the law of prayer) conformed better with the lex credendi (the law of belief). [9]
10. In the Novus Ordo Missae, as in the Lutheran service, the words of Consecration – the very heart of the Traditional Rite – are now part of what is called the “Institution Narrative,” an expression not found in the traditional Missals of the Church. This change makes the priest a narrator rather than another Christ who acts “in the Person of Christ” when consecrating the bread and wine for a valid Eucharist.
11. In the new rite of Holy Orders, which is the sacrament of the priesthood, Paul VI changed the form to mirror the invalid Anglican orders. Thus the new rite of Paul VI is at best a doubtful sacrament making novus ordo bishops and priests doubtful. [10]
12. John Paul II allowed the creation of the Anglican Use form of the Latin Rite, which incorporates the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.
13. On October 4, 2003 at the Vatican, John Paul II kisses the hand of Rowan Williams (traditioninaction.org) head of the Anglican sect and recognizing the fake bishop and apostate religion.
14. We see the John Paul II, Bendict XVI, and Francis promoting Protestant worship and other false religious worship in THE DIABOLICAL ASSISI EVENTS.
15. Benedict XVI declared: “It is our fervent hope that the Anglican Communion will remain grounded in the Gospels and the Apostolic Tradition which form our common patrimony… The world needs our witness… May the Lord continue to bless you and your family, and may he strengthen you in your ministry to the Anglican Communion!” (L’Osservatore Romano, Nov. 29, 2006, p. 6, Benedict XVI, Address to Anglican “Archbishop of Canterbury,” on Nov. 23, 2006)
16. When addressing Protestants at World Youth Day, on August 19, 2005, Benedict XVI stated: “And we now ask: What does it mean to restore the unity of all Christians?… this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return: that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 24, 2005, p. 8)
17. “It means that the Catholic does not insist on the dissolution of the Protestant confessions and the demolishing of their churches but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confessions and in their ecclesial reality.” (Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 202)
18. When the Pastor couldn’t make it: Francis reveals he once led a Lutheran Service
19. “Pope” Francis says he used to Preach at Presbyterian Church in Buenos Aires
20. Francis’ Double Standard: Traditional Latin Mass forbidden, Anglican Service is fine
21. Profanation in Rome: Anglican Liturgy celebrated in St. Peter’s Basilica
22. Francis: Lutherans are “Members of one and the same Mystical Body of Christ” as Catholics
23 More “Papal” Heresy: Francis the Lutheran denies Catholic Dogma on Merit
24. Francis: “I like the Lutherans who follow the True Faith of Jesus Christ”
25. On May 9, 2015, at the Vatican, Francis receives a blessing from about 100 Protestant Pentecostal ministers from around the world. [11]
26. Francis Receives “Blessing” from Archlayman of Canterbury
THE PROMULGATION OF PROTESTANT HERESIES AS CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
27. Benedict XVI professed a Protestant understanding of the atonement in his book “Jesus of Nazereth” who quotes a majority of Protestant theologians as supporting cast. [12]
28. Francis drops another Heresy Bomb: “Friendship with Jesus cannot be broken”
29. “My Brother Bishop” — Francis Greets Anglican-Pentecostal Heretic
30. Invalid Resignation or Invalid Election? Benedict XVI’s Denial of the Dogma of Papal Primacy
31. The Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches
32. Francis denounces Apologetics, Seeking Conversion of Protestants
33. On religious liberty, Vatican 2 declared: “The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. (2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.” Yet, in the Bull Exsurge Domine, June 15, 1520 by Pope Leo X, #33, condemned Luther for saying that it’s against the Spirit to burn a heretic. Vatican 2 actually sides with Luther against Pope Leo X’s condemnation. It would be against the Spirit to burn a heretic if man has a God-given civil right to religious liberty because of the dignity of the human person. The last 2 Catholic constitutions left in the world were dissolved after Vatican 2’s declaration. [13]
34. On the four marks of the Church, Vatican 2 redefined the nature of the Church and declared the Protestant understanding of One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. [14]
35. The Vatican declared that Protestant religions, such as Lutheranism, make up the Church of Christ. Thus, Protestantism makes up the Ark of Salvation. [15]
Footnotes
[1] The Vatican’s Veneration of Arch-Heretic Martin Luther
[2] Vatican releases Postage Stamp honoring Martin Luther – Novus Ordo Watch
[3] Luther: No, Absolutely No – Plinio Correa de Oliveira (traditioninaction.org)
POPE PRAISES LUTHER IN AN APPEAL FOR UNITY ON PROTEST ANNIVERSARY – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
[4] Benedict XVI at the Evangelical Lutheran church in Rome (traditioninaction.org)
[5] In Erfurt Benedict presents Luther as a model for Catholics (traditioninaction.org)
[6] Vatican: Catholics can now recognize Martin Luther as a “Witness to the Gospel” – Novus Ordo Watch
[7] Francis celebrates Reformation with Lutherans in Sweden: Full Coverage – Novus Ordo Watch
[9] (Fr. Rama Coomaraswamy, The Problems with the New Mass, TAN Books p. 24)
[10] Why Catholics Can’t Accept the New Rite of Holy Orders for Priests and Bishops
[11] Pope receives ‘blessing’ from Protestants ministers (traditioninaction.org)
[13] Religious Liberty and the Dignity of the Human Person
[14] Why Sedevacantism? And Missing the Marks: The Church of Vatican 2
[15] That They May Be One (Ut Unum Sint)
Speray's Catholicism in a Nutshell 
That’s a lot of heresies. Thank you for summing it all up for us; there is so much to distill these days
The Novus Ordos are Protestants, like their “separated brethren”. Both hate the true Catholic religion and the true Mass, even though the V2 sect has kept Catholic traditions to keep up appearances. The devil did a great job of setting up a fake church and making everyone believe it’s the Catholic Church.
Great summary…it’s been there in front of us all the time. The blind NO refuse to see it since they gladly and wholeheartedly agree with it and still declare those popes true popes. Absolutely unacceptable and disingenuous to call yourself Catholic and believe these have been true popes and that the NO is the true church of Christ.
Bombshell!
Bergoglio is pulling out all stops he knows his time is short.
If i suspect I made an oath in the past but I don’t remember whether I did or not, what should I do?
Does the following help?
See Moral Theology by Charles J. Callan and John A. McHugh
2246. The Various Kinds of Oaths.–(a) By reason of the matter, an oath
is either assertory or promissory. An assertory oath refers to the past
or present (e.g,, “I swear that I saw the accident,” “I swear that I am
insolvent”), a promissory oath to the future (e.g., “I swear that I
will execute my office faithfully”). The promissory oath is either
without a pact made with another (e.g., in the comminatory oath, “I
swear that I will prosecute, if you do that”) or with a pact. This
latter oath is called confirmatory, and, according as the pact is with
God or with man or with both, it is either a sworn vow, or a sworn
contract, or a sworn vow and contract.
(b) By reason of its mode, an oath is either contestatory (invocatory)
or execratory. The contestatory oath simply calls on God as a witness
(e.g., “God is my witness that this is true,” “I swear by God, etc.”).
The execratory oath asks God, even though the Divine Name is not
expressly mentioned, to punish the swearer in his own person or in the
persons or goods that pertain to him, if the statement made is not true
(e.g., “May God strike me dead, if this is not true!” “May the devil
take my children, if I swear falsely!”). The form commonly used, “So
help me God and these holy Gospels!” has an execratory sense, the
meaning being “May God help me if I speak truly, may He deny me help if
I speak falsely!”
(c) By reason of the person invoked, an oath is either explicit or
implicit. The former calls on God by name (e.g., “God is my witness,”
“I speak the truth in Christ”); the latter calls on some creature as
the reflection of a divine attribute, or in some other way the
representative of God (e.g., the oath of Moses in Deut., xxx. 19: “I
call upon heaven and earth this day to witness that I have offered you
life and death”).
(d) By reason of its legal form, an oath is either solemn or simple,
judicial or extra-judicial. The solemn oath is taken with ceremony
(e.g., before the altar, with hand placed on the Bible, with upraised
hand, etc.); the simple oath is taken privately, without special form
of words or ceremony. The judicial oath is taken in court or in
reference to the public decision of questions of right, fact or
delinquency (e.g., in Canon Law the oaths of calumny, malice, etc.,
which are treated in canonical works); the extra-judicial oath, solemn
or simple, is taken on other occasions (e.g., when two contractants
strengthen their compact by oath). Examples of solemn oaths in the
Bible are found in Gen., xiv. 22, xxiv. 2, 3; Jeremias, xxxiv. 18.
2247. Moral Difference between the Various Kinds of Oaths.–(a)
Essentially, there is no difference, since all the kinds agree in the
principal features mentioned in the definition. (b) Accidentally, there
is a difference in circumstances of form, solemnity, etc. Moreover, one
kind of oath may be more obligatory (e.g., the solemn oath on account
of the special deliberation given it and the scandal caused by its
non-observance is more sacred than the simple oath), or it may have
other species of obligation besides that of religion (e.g., the oath to
keep a compact binds in justice as well as religion).
2248. Lawfulness of Oaths.–(a) It is lawful to take an oath that has
the necessary qualities, for in Scripture God Himself is represented as
swearing (Gen, xxii. 16; Psalm cix. 4, Heb., vi. 13, vii. 21), holy men
swear and are praised for swearing as they should (II Cor., i. 23;
Psalm xiv. 4), and the Church has always made use of oaths. The origin
of oaths is man’s faith in God, and their purpose is the useful one of
lending authority to important assertions. Indeed, an oath is an act of
religion, for men swear only by one who is greater (Heb., vi. 13), and
hence an oath is a profession of reverence for God’s superior
knowledge, truth, and justice.
(b) It is not lawful to take an oath that lacks a necessary quality.
Here we should note an important difference between an oath and other
acts of religion, such as vows. An oath is not desirable for its own
sake, since it is occasioned by human weakness and unreliability;
hence, like medicine and other necessities occasioned by evil, it
should be used only in serious need and sparingly. A vow or other act
of religion, on the contrary, originates from the desire to honor God,
even apart from necessity, and hence it may be used oftener. This
explains why Scripture forbids the habit of swearing (Ecclus., xxiii.
9; Matt., v. 33; James, v. 12); but it is a wrong interpretation of
these texts that sees in them an absolute prohibition of oaths. From
the context and other passages it is clear that the Scriptures just
cited reprove the Pharisees who taught that promiscuous swearing was
lawful, provided only the matter was true or the Divine Name was not
used, and also those persons who delighted to swear on all occasions.
2249. Necessary Qualities of a Lawful Oath.–The necessary qualities
that should accompany an oath are expressed in Jeremias, iv. 2: “And
thou shalt swear, ‘As the Lord liveth,’ in truth, and in judgment and
in justice.” Judgment refers to the good dispositions of the person who
swears, truth and justice to the righteousness of the cause for which
he swears.
(a) Thus, an oath should have judgment; that is, the person who swears
should do so only from serious necessity, with faith and devotion, and
in a manner respectful to God whom he invokes. An oath that lacks
judgment is called incautious or disrespectful, as when one swears
about a trivial matter or swears jokingly.
(b) An oath should have truth; that is, one should not swear except to
that which one believes to be true, after reasonable diligence has been
used in seeking for the truth. An oath that lacks truth is called false
or perjured, as when one swears to what one knows or believes to be
false, or promises what one does not intend to fulfill, or swears that
one is certain when one has only opinion, or swears with a purely
mental reservation, or swears after insufficient investigation of a
matter.
(c) An oath should have justice; that is, one should not promise what
one has no right to promise (e.g., to tell a lie), and one should not
say what one has no right to say (e.g., what is defamatory). The matter
of the oath, then, both as to its object and its circumstances, must be
good, even though one is swearing truthfully and respectfully. An oath
that lacks justice is called a wicked oath, as when one promises under
oath to commit murder, or not to follow what is of counsel, or swears
about a real fact in such a way as to do unnecessary harm to another
person or to boast about one’s own crimes.
2250. Sinful Oaths.–(a) An incautious or disrespectful oath is from
its nature only a venial sin, since its malice consists, not in any
direct injury to the divine truth or other attribute, but only in
levity of mind; and, moreover, it is not opposed to the purpose of an
oath, which is to confirm the truth. But accidentally it may be a
serious sin on account of the scandal it gives (e.g., when a person of
standing swears without necessity), or on account of the danger to
which it exposes the swearer (e.g., when one swears habitually and is
thereby put in the occasion of swearing falsely or unjustly). On
account of the evils of familiarity, etc., to which habitual swearing
leads, Our Lord warn us to be content as a rule to support the truth
with simple assertion or denial (Matt., v. 2). At least for ordinary,
daily communications the word of a Christian or honest man ought to be
sufficient without his oath.
(b) A lying or perjured oath is from the nature of the act always (see
172) a mortal sin, since it consists essentially in contempt for God
and disrespect for His attributes. The perjurer dares to ask God to be
an accomplice in a lie, or else supposes that God can be deceived.
Hence, only by reason of the imperfection of the act can perjury ever
escape the guilt of mortal sin, as when one commits perjury without
sufficient reflection on or full consent to the oath or to its falsity.
Pope Innocent XI condemned the doctrine that perjury is only a light
sin (Denzinger, n. 1174). In Canon Law those who perjure themselves are
debarred from acting as witnesses or giving expert testimony, and are
subject to penalties at the discretion of the Ordinary (see Canons
1757, 1795, 2323). In American civil law perjury is a false oath given
before a tribunal and is a crime against public justice, while
subornation of perjury and false oaths given on private occasions are
also crimes or punishable offenses.
(c) A wicked oath, even though the thing sworn to be true and the oath
be given only after consideration and in a respectful manner, is a sin
against religion and any other virtue it offends. The sin committed by
reason of the oath is from its nature mortal according to some, since
the swearer gravely insults God by asking Him to become a partaker in
sin and by turning into an instrument of sin what should be an act of
religion; others hold that the sin is only venial, since it is not
serious disrespect to ask God to witness the truth of what is true;
others again make the gravity of the sin depend on the wickedness of
the matter or circumstances. This wickedness committed by reason of the
statement or promise is venial or mortal according to the case. Thus,
there is grave injustice in revealing a fact seriously detrimental to
another and which one is bound to keep as confidential; there is venial
scandal in swearing in order to lead another person into a slight fault
of detraction; there is a grave sin of impurity in promising to commit
adultery; there is a light sin of theft in promising to steal a small
sum of money. Finally, others hold that the oath is mortally sinful
when it furthers a grave sin (e.g., an oath confirming serious
detraction), and that it is venial in other cases (e.g., an oath
confirming a boast about past mortal sins).
2251. Mental Reservation in an Oath.-(a) Strict mental reservation
(i.e., the internal restriction of one’s words so that the listener
cannot gather the true meaning, as when one says one has seen Rome,
meaning a picture of Rome) is a lie, and hence cannot be used in an
oath without perjury. See propositions condemned by Innocent XI
(Denzinger, n. 1176).
(b) Wide mental reservation (i.e., the internal restriction of one’s
words that may be gathered by the listener from circumstances, as when
a servant says his master is not at home, meaning that he cannot be
seen) is lawful only when there is some reason of justice or charity
that demands it. Hence, it is a mortal sin to swear with this kind of
reservation when the questioner has the right to know the truth; it is
no sin at all when the questioner has no right to question and mental
reservation is the only escape from a serious evil. If the questioner
has no right to demand an oath and the deponent has no right to use
mental reservation (e.g., when the oath is only private and not
concerned with contract or other important matter), the sinfulness of a
mental reservation is a matter of dispute. Some think the oath is
mortally sinful, because it is gravely irreverent to God to call on Him
to witness testimony meant to deceive. Others think the oath is only
venially sinful, because the offense is not against truth or justice,
but only against judgment or discretion.
2252. Coöperation in Sinful Oaths.–(a) Formal coöperation is never
lawful, because it makes the coöperator will the guilt of what is done.
Thus, he who by command, counsel, promise, etc., induces another to
swear falsely is guilty as the principal or accessory to the crime (see
1513, 1778).
(b) Material coöperation is lawful when there is a sufficient reason
for it, as when a public official demands the oath according to law
from a person who, as he knows, will swear falsely. For the public good
demands that in certain cases oaths be administered, notwithstanding
that for some persons this will prove an occasion of perjury. But the
lawgiver should not multiply temptations by demanding sworn statements
unnecessarily; otherwise the oath becomes a mere formality deprived of
proving value, and the crime of perjury is made common.
2253. Sinful Oaths Demanded or Accepted by Private Persons.–(a)
Incautious or Disrespectful Oaths.–It is not lawful to ask or receive
an oath, when there is no great public or private need for it;
otherwise one makes a sacred act cheap and common. Neither is it lawful
to ask or receive an oath from those who do not believe in oaths (e.g.,
the Mennonites, some Quakers); otherwise one compels another to swear
against his conscience and indevoutly. Those who believe that oaths are
sinful may be required, nevertheless, to bind themselves on their
solemn word of honor, and may be punished in the same manner as
perjurers if they speak falsely.
(b) Perjured Oaths.–It is not lawful for a private person to ask or
receive an oath from another, if he is sure that the latter will commit
perjury; but one may ask and receive an oath, even though one does not
know whether the other person will swear truly or not, if one has a
sufficient reason.
(c) Wicked Oaths.–It is clearly unlawful to ask or receive a wicked
oath, in which something sinful is promised or stated; for the thing
itself is then desired and there is formal coöperation. But it is not
necessarily sinful to ask or receive a wicked oath, in which the
sinfulness is found, not in the matter of the oath, but in the
dispositions of the swearer, for there may be only material
coöperation. Thus, he who exacts a sworn promise of murder agrees to
murder, but he who demands a sworn statement against a third party for
which there is necessity does not necessarily agree to hatred, if the
person taking the oath swears out of hate or revenge.
2254. Fictitious Oaths.–A fictitious oath is one in which a person
swearing externally has no intention internally to call on God as a
witness.
(a) This kind of oath is invalid, for, as was just said, without a real
intention to swear there is no oath. Hence, a fictitious oath produces
no obligation of religion, but there may be an obligation of justice,
as when the oath is the unjust cause of damage to another.
(b) This kind of oath is sinful, for, if it testifies to error, it
includes the grave sin of external dishonor to God; if it testifies to
truth, it includes the venial sin of taking God’s name in vain. The
fictitious oath is a grave sin if the circumstances are such that a
sincere oath is gravely obligatory, as when a superior or judge
lawfully imposes an oath in a serious matter, or the parties to an
important onerous contract bind themselves by oath in order to
strengthen their pact.
2255. Expressions Confused with Oaths.–Expressions that are sometimes
mistakenly confused with sinful swearing are the following: (a) profane
or vulgar talk, such as “Hell,” “The devil,” “Doggone it”; (b) cursing,
such as “Go to hell,” “God damn you,” “Damn it”, (e) contumely, such as
“bastard,” “son of a bitch”; (d) vain use of the name of God, such as
“by God,” “Christ,” etc., when used as common exclamations; (e)
temptation of God, such as: “If there is a God, may He strike me
dead!”; (f) blasphemy, such as: “May God perish, if this is not true!”
The expressions, “This is as true as the Gospel,” “God’s own word is
not more truthful,” “I am as innocent as the Blessed Virgin,” etc., if
used to confirm the truth, are not meant to assert the speaker’s
equality to God and the Saints, and hence they are venial sins of
taking the Lord’s name in vain. But, if they are used to confirm error,
they are mortal sins of blasphemy.
2256. Obligation Imposed by Promissory Oath.–An assertory oath imposes
the obligation of telling the truth and of repairing any damage that
results from the falsity or injustice of the declaration. In addition,
a promissory oath binds one in virtue of religion to perform one’s
promise; for, as said above (2249), an oath must have truth. Hence,
Scripture bids those who have sworn to fulfill the promise (Matt., v.
33) not to make the word of no effect (Num, xxxi. 3). But the thing
promised must be possible and lawful, or otherwise the oath lacks
judgment or justice. (a) Thus, an impossible promise is not binding,
for no one can oblige himself to perform what he cannot perform (cfr.
2201); (b) an unlawful promise is not binding, for no one can oblige
himself to perform what he is bound not to do. Thus, an oath to revenge
murder by murder is null, and sin is committed both in taking and in
keeping it.
2257. Obligation Imposed by Negative Oaths.–The obligation of a sworn
promise not to do what is better (e.g., not to take a vow), or to do
what is vain and useless (e.g., an oath to count the steps one takes),
depends on the circumstances. (a) If there are no rights of a third
party involved, these oaths do not hold (e.g., he who swears not to vow
acts laudably in disregarding the oath). For one may not call God to
witness or be guarantee for that which is less pleasing to Him, or
which in no way honors Him, and for which there is no claim on the part
of a third person. (b) If there are rights of a third party involved,
these oaths oblige one to give the third party what he is entitled to
from the promise (e.g., a nurse who swears to remain with a sick person
may not violate the oath by entering religion).
2258. Obligation of Oath Is Personal.–An oath added to a promise made
to man and obligatory in justice is personal, and hence it binds the
one who makes the oath, but not his heirs (see 2216).
2259. Interpretation of Promissory Oaths.–(a) An oath should be
interpreted strictly, for the presumption is that the promisor intended
to place upon himself the least possible burden. Thus, if a person
swears to observe the statutes of a certain Congregation, it should be
understood that he pledges himself to present, not to future statutes;
if he swears not to gamble, the oath does not forbid games in which
money is not played for. But if the promisor acts deceitfully, the oath
is to be interpreted according to the intention of him who receives the
promise (Canon 1321).
(b) An oath is always subject to the limitations and reservations which
the nature of the case, law, or custom demands. Hence, even though an
oath is made unconditionally, the following conditions are understood:
“If fulfillment will be physically and morally possible,” “saving the
rights of superiors,” “unless the other party renounces his right,”
“unless the other party fails to keep his part of the agreement,”
“unless there comes a notable change in conditions.” If the promisor
explains beforehand to the promisee what he understands by the oath, he
swears only in the sense thus set forth by him.
(c) An oath follows the nature and conditions of the act (e.g.,
resolution, promise, vow, contract) that it confirms, for the accessory
follows the principal. Hence, if the act to which the oath is attached
cannot be obligatory (e.g., an act detrimental to eternal salvation, or
the public good, or the rights of a third party), the oath gives no
strength to this act (Canon 1318); if the act is naturally invalid
(e.g., a promise obtained through substantial fraud), the oath is also
invalid; if the act does not become effective (e.g., a promise not
accepted), neither does the oath become effective; if the act ceases to
oblige (e.g., a promise of secrecy made for a time), the oath also
ceases to oblige; if the act is not obligatory under grave sin, the
oath is not obligatory under grave sin (e.g., if one swears to observe
the statutes of a university, one is not bound to observe those that
are commonly neglected, one commits no sin by transgressing those that
are merely penal or optional, and one commits no grave sin by violating
those that oblige under venial sin).
2260. Kind of Obligation Produced by a Valid Promissory Oath.–(a) The
obligation is one of religion, because the significance of the oath is
that it adds the duty of respect owed to God to the duty of fidelity
owed to the promise. Men swear in order to make their promises more
trustworthy through the sacredness of the oath. The violation of a
promissory oath is, therefore, always a sin against religion. There are
other sins added in some species of oath, namely, a second sin against
religion in case of a sworn vow, a sin against justice and fidelity in
case of a sworn contract, a second sin against religion and a sin
against justice and fidelity in case of a sworn vow and contract (see
2246 a).
(b) The obligation, other things being equal, is less than that
produced by a vow, because the vow binds in virtue of fidelity to God,
but the oath only in virtue of respect. The obligation of fidelity
seems to be stronger, because unfaithfulness always contains
disrespect, but not vice versa. Moreover, in the case of a vow not only
the fulfillment of the promise, but the thing promised itself is
sacred, which is not true in the case of an oath. An assertory oath,
however, seems to be more binding than a vow, because it is a greater
injury to God to make Him the witness for falsehood than to break a
promise made to Him.
2261. Degree of the Obligation of a Valid Promissory Oath.–(a) The
obligation is grave, from the nature of an oath, because the virtue of
religion is preeminent among the moral virtues (see 2146). There is no
doubt that mortal sin is committed when one gives a sworn promise and
has no intention to fulfill it, for this is perjury (see 2250 b); and
also when one unjustly refuses to live up to an important engagement
made under oath, for this is irreligion and injustice in a serious
matter. The remarks on grave matter in vows (2211) apply here, but,
since the vow obliges more strictly, a somewhat greater amount is
needed for serious matter in violation of an oath.
(b) The obligation may be light on account of the smallness of the
matter involved. Even a vow, which is more binding than an oath, may be
of venial obligation in this way (see 2211). A person who makes a
promise under oath, fully intending to keep the promise, but who later
changes his mind without sufficient reason, does not show disrespect to
God, since when the oath was made he intended to abide by it, and does
not seriously injure his neighbor, since, as we suppose, the matter of
the oath is small. The sin, therefore, is one of inconstancy or levity,
and, if there is disrespect, it is slight. Thus, if a person who had
sworn to drink no more wine took a drop now and then, these
transgressions would be only venial. Some authors, however, believe
that every unfaithfulness to a promissory oath, no matter how small the
subject-matter, is a grave sin, because perjury is committed by the
breach of promise. This is commonly denied, because the meaning of a
promissory oath is that God is called on to witness the truth of a
present intention and the obligation (great or small) of a future
performance.
2262. Cessation of Obligation of Promissory Oath.–The obligation of a
promissory oath, like that of a vow (see 2226), ceases intrinsically or
extrinsically.
(a) Intrinsically, an oath ceases when there is a substantial change in
the matter (e.g., it is or has become impossible or unlawful, as in
Herod’s oath to Salome), when the principal reason for the oath has
ceased (e.g., Titus swore to give an alms to Sempronius because the
latter was poor, but before the alms was given Sempronius became rich),
or when the time or condition by which the oath was limited terminates
the obligation.
(b) Extrinsically, an oath ceases by condonation (e.g., when the State
or a private person to whom a sworn promise has been made yields the
right and remits the obligation), by annulment (e.g., when a father
nullifies the oath of his minor child), by dispensation (e.g., when the
Church absolves from an oath taken under grave compulsion), by
commutation (e.g., when the Church changes the matter of a sworn vow
into something more suitable). Those who can annul, dispense or commute
vows have the same power over oaths; but if the dispensation of an oath
is detrimental to others who are unwilling to forego the promise, only
the Apostolic See can dispense, and then on account of a necessary
reason (see Canon 1320).
2263. Adjuration.–Adjuration is the invocation of the name of God used
in a request or command to another person in order to move that person
to do or omit something.
(a) It is an invocation, and in this respect it is like an oath, for
both an oath and an adjuration call upon the name of God.
(b) It calls upon the name of God either explicitly (e.g., “I command
you in the name of God”) or implicitly (e.g., “I beseech you for the
sake of the passion of Christ”). If command or request is made in the
name of a creature and without reference to God’s attributes reflected
in them, there is not, properly speaking, an adjuration, as when one
implores a favor from another person in the name of a Patron Saint, or
of one’s country, parents, friendship, etc.
(c) It is used in a command or a request, and thus it differs from
prayer, which cannot be made in the form of a command. But adjuration
may be used in prayers to God Himself or to the Saints, as is done in
obsecrations.
(d) Its purpose is to move another to an act or omission, and thus it
is different from an oath. The end of an oath is to confirm one’s words
by the testimony of God; the end of an adjuration is to influence
another to a certain course through an appeal to his respect, fear or
love of God.