Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Banez123 on January 23, 2025, 05:09:18 PM
-
David Bentley Hart is one of my favorite living theologians. He understands the complexities of theology and doesn't give dull answers to questions. I recommend this video for those who think that all ecuмenism is wrong or bad. Very solid and deep.
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrEtOf_ypJnuwIAQyNXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1738883072/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fclosertotruth.com%2fvideo%2fharda-010%2f/RK=2/RS=5mmEafj8tV4kioOZtSm71LQJz5c-
-
David Bentley Hart is a militant universalist. He's not a success story of anything, except maybe modernism and liberalism.
-
David Bentley Hart is a militant universalist. He's not a success story of anything, except maybe modernism and liberalism.
Hart received his PhD from UVA, works with Notre Dame, and is respected by a number of orthodox Catholic thinkers today (like Robert Louis Wilken)
I suggest you watch/read his stuff before making silly statements.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/4sE6k3S.jpeg)
Why don't you engage with what he says instead of attacking his personal life? There's nothing necessarily repugnant in any of what yoy quoted.
-
David Bentley Hart is a militant universalist. He's not a success story of anything, except maybe modernism and liberalism.
By the way, the question of universalism is a complex theological and philosophical question. It's not something that has a black and white answer. The Church Fathers grappled with it throughout the first millennium
-
Hart received his PhD from UVA, works with Notre Dame, and is respected by a number of orthodox Catholic thinkers today (like Robert Louis Wilken)
I suggest you watch/read his stuff before making silly statements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
-
Orthodox. End of Story for Catholics.
-
OP, are you Orthodox?
Are you here proselytizing for the Orthodox?
-
His email suggests his name is "Khater". I remember that name -- as a past member I banned.
-
David Bentley Hart is one of my favorite living theologians.
When someone can say this of an Orthodox pseudo-theologian, he doesn't belong here.
-
OP, are you Orthodox?
Are you here proselytizing for the Orthodox?
No. I am a parishioner at an FSSP parish. The fact that Hart is Orthodox does not of itself make him wrong.
-
His email suggests his name is "Khater". I remember that name -- as a past member I banned.
I don't attend SSPX or Resistance chapels. I only posted the Hart video to bring about some discussion.
-
All sorts of odd stuff is tolerated on here (Flat Eartherism, various theories about the current political situation, Feeneyism, etc) so I don't see why just discussing the video I linked to is an issue.
I don't agree with Hart on everything but he is a serious thinker.
As Traditional Catholics, we do ourselves a disservice by not engaging with current theologians.
-
When someone can say this of an Orthodox pseudo-theologian, he doesn't belong here.
Hey Lad
Which of his works have you read? If you haven't read him, I wouldn't jump out calling him a pseudo-theologian.
-
Banez123
Date Registered: September 04, 2024, 02:18:46 AM
First post: Today at 08:09:18 PM
This is likely an alternative spare profile from another user, probably the one who's been banned.
These trolls, they always start with a bang. First post is already controversial.
-
A serious problem with modern Traditional Catholicism is that scholars and thinkers (of varying persuasions) are dismissed without serious consideration. Laity and even clergy in Tradition do this pretty often. The claim that Pope Benedict XVI denied the Resurrection of Christ (a laughable idea for anyone who has actually read his work) is just one example that can be given. If you don't like Hart, Balthasar, Congar, Ratzinger, etc- that's fine. But read them first and develop serious responses to their work. That's all I'm saying.
-
Banez123
Date Registered: September 04, 2024, 02:18:46 AM
First post: Today at 08:09:18 PM
This is likely an alternative spare profile from another user, probably the one who's been banned.
These trolls, they always start with a bang. First post is already controversial.
I was banned but then unbanned(at least when it comes to my previous account)
I am a Traditional Catholic who attends the FSSP(I attended Resistance and SSPX back in the day) I don't attend the New Mass and wouldn't even consider doing so. Why should I be banned?
-
By the way, the question of universalism is a complex theological and philosophical question. It's not something that has a black and white answer. The Church Fathers grappled with it throughout the first millennium
Judith 16
"Woe be to the nation that riseth up against my people: for the Lord almighty will take revenge on them, in the day of judgment he will visit them. For he will give fire, and worms into their flesh, that they may burn, and may feel for ever"
Fifth Ecuмenical Council, Anathemas Against Origen
"If anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of [all] names, and that there shall be finally an identity of the γνῶσις and of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the feigned pre-existence: let him be anathema"
Seventh Ecuмenical Council, Session VI (sourced from The Seventh General Council by John Mendham, Pg. 423)
"If any one confess not the resurrection of the dead, the judgment to come, the retribution of each one according to his merits, in the righteous balance of the Lord that neither will there be any end of punishment nor indeed of the kingdom of heaven, that is the full enjoyment of God, for the kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink but righteousness joy and peace in the Holy Ghost, as the divine Apostle teaches, let him be anathema"
"This is the confession of the patrons of our true faith — the holy Apostles, the divinely inspired Fathers: this is the confession of the Catholic Church, and not of heretics. That which follows, however, is their own, full of ignorance and absurdity, for thus they bluster."
-
Judith 16
"Woe be to the nation that riseth up against my people: for the Lord almighty will take revenge on them, in the day of judgment he will visit them. For he will give fire, and worms into their flesh, that they may burn, and may feel for ever"
Fifth Ecuмenical Council, Anathemas Against Origen
"If anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of [all] names, and that there shall be finally an identity of the γνῶσις and of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the feigned pre-existence: let him be anathema"
Seventh Ecuмenical Council, Session VI (sourced from The Seventh General Council by John Mendham, Pg. 423)
"If any one confess not the resurrection of the dead, the judgment to come, the retribution of each one according to his merits, in the righteous balance of the Lord that neither will there be any end of punishment nor indeed of the kingdom of heaven, that is the full enjoyment of God, for the kingdom of heaven is not meat and drink but righteousness joy and peace in the Holy Ghost, as the divine Apostle teaches, let him be anathema"
"This is the confession of the patrons of our true faith — the holy Apostles, the divinely inspired Fathers: this is the confession of the Catholic Church, and not of heretics. That which follows, however, is their own, full of ignorance and absurdity, for thus they bluster."
The ecuмenical councils must be understood in the way the Church understands them.
Here's my understanding.
I believe explicit faith in Christ is needed for salvation. However, I also think that God (to display his mercy and greater glory) may at the hour of death come to whomever he wishes and offer them this faith/salvation(either through an angel or Himself)
Hell does exist, and those who die having committed grave sins will spend time there. However, whether it is eternal or ultimately comes to an end is a serious question.
-
[...] for to this effect have the apostles decreed saying, With the excommunicated no fellowship is to be held. And if anyone, setting aside the rules wittingly, sings with the excommunicated in his house, or speaks or prays in company with them, that man is to be deprived of the privilege of communion. Such persons, therefore, are in all things to be guarded against, and are not to be received, because according to the apostle, not only those who commit such things are condemned, but also those who consent with those who do them."
Pope St. Fabian (b. 20 January, 250)
(https://i.imgur.com/fDFe3Ou.jpeg)
This quote comes from before the schism. The post-schism situation when it comes to the Orthodox is much more complex.
-
This quote comes from before the schism. The post-schism situation when it comes to the Orthodox is much more complex.
They deny the Holy Trinity when denying the Filioque, the Filioque is required for the opposition of relations of the Blessed Holy Trinity. Also I heard they (un)orthodox have false beliefs on purgatory and predestination, also their Churches are state Churches, also communism, also they deny the Council of Florence.
Pope Eugene IV, “Cantate Domino", Council of Florence
"It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels”, unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
-
I was banned but then unbanned(at least when it comes to my previous account)
I am a Traditional Catholic who attends the FSSP(I attended Resistance and SSPX back in the day) I don't attend the New Mass and wouldn't even consider doing so. Why should I be banned?
I don't understand how you can start well and then go FSSP. Strange.
I don't do the banning and I don't think that everybody who goes to the Novus Ordo should be banned. People might be here to learn and not for trolling.
Anyway, tell us your previous username then, so we can understand your history here.
-
The ecuмenical councils must be understood in the way the Church understands them.
Here's my understanding.
I believe explicit faith in Christ is needed for salvation. However, I also think that God (to display his mercy and greater glory) may at the hour of death come to whomever he wishes and offer them this faith/salvation(either through an angel or Himself)
Hell does exist, and those who die having committed grave sins will spend time there. However, whether it is eternal or ultimately comes to an end is a serious question.
As expressed in the Holy Bible, Sacred Tradition, papal statements, and ecuмenical councils, the eternality of hell is a dogma of the Catholic Church.
-
They deny the Holy Trinity when denying the Filioque, the Filioque is required for the opposition of relations of the Blessed Holy Trinity. Also I heard they (un)orthodox have false beliefs on purgatory and predestination, also their Churches are state Churches, also communism, also they deny the Council of Florence.
How could I forget, they deny the Papacy.
-
Hell does exist, and those who die having committed grave sins will spend time there. However, whether it is eternal or ultimately comes to an end is a serious question.
Heresy, Hell is eternal. Or do you perhaps believe that Heaven is not eternal?
-
I don't understand how you can start well and then go FSSP. Strange.
I don't do the banning and I don't think that everybody who goes to the Novus Ordo should be banned. People might be here to learn and not for trolling.
Anyway, tell us your previous username then, so we can understand your history here.
I don't think the past history matters. Lets just say I had a very bad experience with a Trad group (I wasn't blameless in what happened but neither were they)
Again, I don't attend the New Mass. I attend the FSSP because the priests are well formed and allow people to think for themselves without intruding on their lives.
There are wonderful priests in other groups but I don't like the way groups to the right of the FSSP conduct themselves. I can go into more detail.
-
Heresy, Hell is eternal. Or do you perhaps believe that Heaven is not eternal?
Instead of arguing with you, I'll recommend you read Balthasar for Thomists (a recent book by the Dominican Fr. Aidan Nichols) That will answer your questions.
-
I don't think the past history matters. Lets just say I had a very bad experience with a Trad group (I wasn't blameless in what happened but neither were they)
Again, I don't attend the New Mass. I attend the FSSP because the priests are well formed and allow people to think for themselves without intruding on their lives.
There are wonderful priests in other groups but I don't like the way groups to the right of the FSSP conduct themselves. I can go into more detail.
So you have a little secret huh?:trollface:
I don't know any FSSP priests, but their Holy Orders are doubtful. That's why they are out of the question for me.
-
So you have a little secret huh?:trollface:
I don't know any FSSP priests, but their Holy Orders are doubtful. That's why they are out of the question for me.
Not a secret. Just an unfortunate event which doesn't need to be rehashed.
As for your comment on FSSP orders, I (and Fr. Pierre Marie of Avrille) would disagree with you. It's a debatable question.
-
Here is his previous account:
https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Banezian/
Indeed his previous account is in good standing. Why the new account? That's against the rules you know.
-
Here is his previous account:
https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Banezian/
Indeed his previous account is in good standing. Why the new account? That's against the rules you know.
I lost access to my old account. I try to reset my password and no email comes.
-
In any event, now that the old account has come up, I'll just say that if anyone has any questions for me- fire away.
I wasn't blameless in what happened (as I've said) but neither were a few others involved.
-
No. I am a parishioner at an FSSP parish. The fact that Hart is Orthodox does not of itself make him wrong.
Between this and your assertion that he's your favorite "theologian", you're suspect of heresy. No Catholic could call an Orthodox theologian his favorite and say he's "not wrong". He's wrong by definition. But I guess religious indifferentism would be endemic in a group of that consider the Heresiarchs Montini and Wojtyla to be saints.
-
Between this and your assertion that he's your favorite "theologian", you're suspect of heresy. No Catholic could call an Orthodox theologian his favorite and say he's "not wrong". He's wrong by definition. But I guess religious indifferentism would be endemic in a group of that consider the Heresiarchs Montini and Wojtyla to be saints.
I said he was "one of my favorite living theologians"
I also like Fr. Thomas Joseph White, Fr. Aidan Nichols, Fr. Thomas Crean, Dr. John Lamont, and many others.
-
Between this and your assertion that he's your favorite "theologian", you're suspect of heresy. No Catholic could call an Orthodox theologian his favorite and say he's "not wrong". He's wrong by definition. But I guess religious indifferentism would be endemic in a group of that consider the Heresiarchs Montini and Wojtyla to be saints.
I think JP2 and the others may be saints (but it's not certain by any means) If they are saints, they are saints only because the entire Church prayed for them at death and they made it to Heaven as a result. Not due to anything heroic they did.
-
I lost access to my old account. I try to reset my password and no email comes.
It has happened to me. All you need to do is to send Matthew an e-mail.
You are correct. There are a few "experts" who consider Novus Ordo Holy Orders to be valid. They don't convince me.
But let us not hijack the thread anymore. It seems that you are saying weird stuff right now, but I won't discuss Orthodox theologians. With all due respect, life is too short for this. I wish you well. May God bless you.
-
Instead of arguing with you, I'll recommend you read Balthasar for Thomists (a recent book by the Dominican Fr. Aidan Nichols) That will answer your questions.
Hell being eternal is a dogmatic certitude.
-
Hell being eternal is a dogmatic certitude.
Yes, hell is eternal because God is eternal. If souls ever were released from hell, they would have gotten away with having died in mortal sin, iow they would have beaten God.
-
Instead of arguing with you, I'll recommend you read Balthasar for Thomists (a recent book by the Dominican Fr. Aidan Nichols) That will answer your questions.
He asked what you believe. If you recommend Balthasar, along with the Orthodox heretic, this only confirms that you're suspect of heresy.
This guy here is not a Catholic and should be banned. Also, being an FSSPer, he really hasn't business here other than to troll. He's the ultimate smells and bells guy, having some reason to attend a Tridentine Mass (probably just aesthetic) while pushing heresy.
-
I said he was "one of my favorite living theologians"
I also like Fr. Thomas Joseph White, Fr. Aidan Nichols, Fr. Thomas Crean, Dr. John Lamont, and many others.
Doesn't help your case any. He has no business being in any list of "favorites" for an actual Catholic. Nobody here wants the Modernist-heretic trash you're pushing.
-
He asked what you believe. If you recommend Balthasar, along with the Orthodox heretic, this only confirms that you're suspect of heresy.
This guy here is not a Catholic and should be banned. Also, being an FSSPer, he really hasn't business here other than to troll. He's the ultimate smells and bells guy, having some reason to attend a Tridentine Mass (probably just aesthetic) while pushing heresy.
Maybe he should be banned, but I'm just curious how you know he isn't Catholic? Isn't it possible (likely) that he just is going this route because he's persuaded the V2 Magisterium is the Catholic magisterium?
-
Maybe he should be banned, but I'm just curious how you know he isn't Catholic? Isn't it possible (likely) that he just is going this route because he's persuaded the V2 Magisterium is the Catholic magisterium?
When he promotes an Orthodox guy as "one of his favorite theologians" and "not wrong" ... and then Modernist-heretics like Balthasaar, no Catholic could actually do that. No Orthodox thinker should ever even make a Catholic's list of theologians, much less his "favorite" ones. And, of course, the term theologian (for a Catholic) does not apply to some Orthodox thinker. In no sense is he a theologian, since theology (as St. Thomas defines) requires faith. He's a "thinker about religion", but the term theologian for Catholics requires the Catholic faith as the foundation.
-
Hart received his PhD from UVA, works with Notre Dame, and is respected by a number of orthodox Catholic thinkers today (like Robert Louis Wilken)
I suggest you watch/read his stuff before making silly statements.
Back when he was "coming out" as a universalist I actually followed him fairly closely. Aside from being a heretic, what I remember most was how arrogant and petulantly childish he was when more capable thinkers like Ed Feser thoroughly debunked his drivel.
.
-
All sorts of odd stuff is tolerated on here (Flat Eartherism)
"Flat Eartherism"
k.
-
I clicked on the link in the OP, the site is called "Closer to the truth" which immediately flags it out as non-Catholic because that title alone says that we Catholics are searching for the truth. We're not searching for the truth at all - God has given us the truth, God has imposed the truth upon us, we are bound under the pain of damnation to accept it.
-
When he promotes an Orthodox guy as "one of his favorite theologians" and "not wrong" ... and then Modernist-heretics like Balthasaar, no Catholic could actually do that. No Orthodox thinker should ever even make a Catholic's list of theologians, much less his "favorite" ones. And, of course, the term theologian (for a Catholic) does not apply to some Orthodox thinker. In no sense is he a theologian, since theology (as St. Thomas defines) requires faith. He's a "thinker about religion", but the term theologian for Catholics requires the Catholic faith as the foundation.
Ok but I’m sort of going back to the formal/material distinction you’ve made, so if he believes that the conciliar church is the Catholic Church he might see this kind of ecuмenical reaching across the aisle as what Catholics are supposed to do, so he could just be in error from your vantage point and not actually not Catholic. Since I know you don’t consider everyone who belongs to the NO Church as automatically not Catholic, I’m just wondering how you judge the OP in particular to be definitely non Catholic when presumably believing ecuмenism isn’t heresy is gonna be part and parcel for anyone who belongs to the NO
-
You are literally over in the newest poll arguing the EXACT opposite. What makes this Benaz-Nishant fellow any different than the "Formal Motive Novus Ordos" you are saying are Catholics? In his mind he may believe that Ortho theologians and Balthasaar can be good - like Ratzinger thought - tons of people on this forum probably think Ratzinger was a saint and yearn to have someone like him sitting on the throne again. Are you going to claim that they are all non-Catholics too here - but then jump back over to other threads and argue that they are Catholic, because of formal motive :confused:
The bolded is not true. I have never seem more than a handful of trolls who would agree with this.
People might not be perfect, but our crowd here is not this stupid.
-
You are literally over in the newest poll arguing the EXACT opposite. What makes this Benaz-Nishant fellow any different than the "Formal Motive Novus Ordos" you are saying are Catholics? In his mind he may believe that Ortho theologians and Balthasaar can be good - like Ratzinger thought - tons of people on this forum probably think Ratzinger was a saint and yearn to have someone like him sitting on the throne again. Are you going to claim that they are all non-Catholics too here - but then jump back over to other threads and argue that they are Catholic, because of formal motive :confused:
You're still confusing formal motive with "sincerity". Read what I posted again. Yes, I do believe Nishant has the faith (as far as I can tell), whereas this Benaz guy is suspect due to pushing non-Catholic theologians. I don't think it's Nishant in this case, but just wanted to "check" just in case.
-
You are literally over in the newest poll arguing the EXACT opposite.
No, it only seems that way to those (like yourself) who simply cannot grasp the concept of distinctions.
Try reading my post again until you understand it.
Since the Orthodox have been declared heretical and schismatic by the authority of the Church, there's no room for private judgement and interpretation. By the Church's authority, they are not Catholic. Consequently, he's suspect of heresy for pushing an Orthodox "theologian", since the Church's teaching on the matter is clear, that these people are heretics.
Meanwhile, there are Catholics who believe the Conciliar Church's claim to be the Catholic Church, drawing that conclusion for various reasons that we Traditional Catholics consider fault. Yet, that's our opinion, and even if we think the logic is unassailable, it's lacking the Church's authority, which is necessary to bind consciences.
As I said, please read again my explanation of material error vs. formal error, and how it has nothing to do with "sincerity". It has to do with whether there is or is not objective certainty based on the Church's authority.
Orthodox are a schismatic sect, simpliciter, due to the Church's authority. Conciliar Church profess to be the Catholic Church and the actual Catholic Church has not declared otherwise. We have built up a logical case against it, but that's our judgment only.
It's similar to how dogmas can be in different states. Let's say it's the year 1800 and I'm a theologian who's arguing that papal infallibility is revealed dogma. I'm actually right. It is revealed dogma. But someone who rejected it in the year 1800 would not be considered a formal/pertinacious heretic, even though papal infallbility is objectively a dogma and they reject it. That's because it hasn't been defined and proposed yet with sufficient clarity by the Church's authority to render a rejecting of it formal pertinacious heresy. I could prove papal infallibility is dogma with unassailable logic, up one side and down the other, but no matter what I say, someone who didn't agree with my reasoning cannot be a formal pertinacious heretic.
It's exactly the same situation with the Conciliar Church. We could argue with the same certainty and be right, just like the aforementioned theologian regarding papal infallibility ... but until the Church's authority confirms our assessment, those who reject our arguments, our reasoning, and our judgment cannot be accused of pertinacious formal heresy.
Maybe that comparison with the dogmas before they've been defined can help clarify the distinction you're otherwise unable to grasp.
This is the same error the Dimonds make, where they keep claiming that people who are exposed to their arguments cannot be accused of formal pertinacious heresy. That's 100% false. Unless the Church has defined something, no matter how "air tight" their logic might seem, it can't rise to the level of objectively imposing itself on others' consciences absent the authority of the Church.
-
No, it only seems that way to those (like yourself) who simply cannot grasp the concept of distinctions.
Try reading my post again until you understand it.
Since the Orthodox have been declared heretical and schismatic by the authority of the Church, there's no room for private judgement and interpretation. By the Church's authority, they are not Catholic. Consequently, he's suspect of heresy for pushing an Orthodox "theologian", since the Church's teaching on the matter is clear, that these people are heretics.
Meanwhile, there are Catholics who believe the Conciliar Church's claim to be the Catholic Church, drawing that conclusion for various reasons that we Traditional Catholics consider fault. Yet, that's our opinion, and even if we think the logic is unassailable, it's lacking the Church's authority, which is necessary to bind consciences.
As I said, please read again my explanation of material error vs. formal error, and how it has nothing to do with "sincerity". It has to do with whether there is or is not objective certainty based on the Church's authority.
Orthodox are a schismatic sect, simpliciter, due to the Church's authority. Conciliar Church profess to be the Catholic Church and the actual Catholic Church has not declared otherwise. We have built up a logical case against it, but that's our judgment only.
It's similar to how dogmas can be in different states. Let's say it's the year 1800 and I'm a theologian who's arguing that papal infallibility is revealed dogma. I'm actually right. It is revealed dogma. But someone who rejected it in the year 1800 would not be considered a formal/pertinacious heretic, even though papal infallbility is objectively a dogma and they reject it. That's because it hasn't been defined and proposed yet with sufficient clarity by the Church's authority to render a rejecting of it formal pertinacious heresy. I could prove papal infallibility is dogma with unassailable logic, up one side and down the other, but no matter what I say, someone who didn't agree with my reasoning cannot be a formal pertinacious heretic.
It's exactly the same situation with the Conciliar Church. We could argue with the same certainty and be right, just like the aforementioned theologian regarding papal infallibility ... but until the Church's authority confirms our assessment, those who reject our arguments, our reasoning, and our judgment cannot be accused of pertinacious formal heresy.
Maybe that comparison with the dogmas before they've been defined can help clarify the distinction you're otherwise unable to grasp.
This is the same error the Dimonds make, where they keep claiming that people who are exposed to their arguments cannot be accused of formal pertinacious heresy. That's 100% false. Unless the Church has defined something, no matter how "air tight" their logic might seem, it can't rise to the level of objectively imposing itself on others' consciences absent the authority of the Church.
I know I'm just engaging in this as a thought exercise (because I want to understand how your position works) but here's where I'm getting hung up.
I feel like on Vatican II ecclesiology, its conceivable that a Catholic could have an Orthodox theologian as one of his favorite theologians. I get that based upon Traditionalist (whether R&R or Sede) ecclesiology, it would be kind of absurd to think that way.
So Johannes position seems consistent to me. Modernism has been condemned as a heresy, by claiming to be a Catholic promoting an Orthodox theologian, he's engaging in modernism, so he's not Catholic.
But I think the logical conclusion of your position is that, while maybe suspect of heresy, OP still *could* be Catholic.