Talk:Oath Against Modernism

[Untitled]

I suppose an entry on the Anti-Modernist Oath might be biased, but the interpretations currently here of what Modernism "means" are not anywhere near what Wikipedia standards might be. Any changes in this however are very likely to be vetoed as "original research." The non-Catholic Wikipedia reader should be warned to take this entry with a little skeptical reserve. --Wetman 01:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The commentary seems highly POV, with no references. Since the source text is available elsewhere, maybe this should be cut down to the first paragraph or so. -Willmcw 11:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Not just to non-Catholics. This is a defence of the text of the Oath, not an article. It also fails to put Catholic anti-modernism in its context - the softening of the line under Benedict XV, further change in the 60s, and the current mixed position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.141 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 21 April 2005 (UTC)

Summary

A concise summary of the Oath would be very useful, as currently the article only describes how the Oath has been treated, and not what it actually says. 24.252.195.3 (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

rescision date

I'm trying to find the exact date of the rescision of the Oath, as stated by Diligens as of 28 May 2006. If someone can produce a reference, it shall surely be welcomed. Otherwise, the statement may be deleted as undocumented. Louie (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Promulgation

The Oath was promulgated in 1910 via the Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, not by the encyclical Pascendi, which was issued in 1907. I've corrected this. Alan162 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. No opposition and no reason to put the m in caps. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Oath against Modernism → Oath against modernism – There is no reason to believe "modernism" should be capitalized. It is not the proper name of a movement, nor is it part of a proper title. The "oath against modernism" is a descriptive name not found in Sacrorum antistitum. There the name for the thing this article is about is given as iurisiurandi formula (not capitalized), which translates to "formula of the duty to be avowed". As far as which is most common, this NGram shows that it's really a mashup, with the proposed title coming out very slightly ahead of other capitalizations; so other considerations should be used instead. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 06:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC), edited 06:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Support: can't think of a valid reason to oppose. "Modernism" is not capitalization-worthy. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.