He did. Follow the link in my previous post. His motu proprio is on papalencyclicals.net.

Some choose neither to hear nor to read that which goes against their fictitious narrative.

Meg. St. Pius X (previously posted):

You cited this quote as belonging to Pope Pius X:

"By Our Apostolic authority, We repeat and confirm not only that Decree of the Sacred Supreme Congregation, but also that Encyclical Letter of Ours, adding the penalty of Excommunication against all who contradict them."

Where does this quote originally come from? I don't mean an article from a layperson who quotes it, but what is the original docuмent by Pius X, from which your quote is derived?

Some choose neither to hear nor to read that which goes against their fictitious narrative.

True. Plus in this special case we have the SSPX, named after St. Pius X, which since it's foundation managed to fail to inform people about the real situation. They've talked a lot about Modernism, called out many Modernists, but still treated them as Catholics, as if they were Catholics.

Meg,
my mistake, I forgot to post the reference; its from the Denzinger, Pius X, "Praestantia Scriptura" Dz-2114
https://patristica.net/denzinger/#n2100

Thanks for providing a source. It comes from a Motu Proprio called, "Praestantia Scriptura" by Pope Pius X. Unfortunately, the Popes aren't bound, as far as I know, by Motu Proprios of other popes. But still, it may apply to others in the hierarchy, but how much force does a Motu Proprio really have? After all, it's obvious that all of the Modernists in the Church at that time didn't leave the Church after fearing an automatic excommunication by the above Motu Proprio. They probably ignored it. 

I don't understand why Pope Pius X didn't call a Council in order to address the heresy of Modernism. That's what Councils are supposed to be for - to address error, and clarify and promote truth. It would have been more binding of course if a Council had condemned the heresy of Modernism. Though the Modernists may still have ignored it. Why God allowed the Crisis to occur isn't really clear. 

True. Plus in this special case we have the SSPX, named after St. Pius X, which since it's foundation managed to fail to inform people about the real situation. They've talked a lot about Modernism, called out many Modernists, but still treated them as Catholics, as if they were Catholics.

How "did they treat them as Catholics"?  You treat people as Catholics, by threatening them with excommunication?

Meg,
"Popes are not bound by the M.P.'s Of other Popes"
I didn't know that they weren't. I'm interested in your source.

How is a Motu Proprio binding on any future Pope? It's not like it's a de fide docuмent. And besides - the Pope is judged by no one. Canon law does not apply to Popes, so why would a Motu Proprio? 

Are you fairly new to Catholicism or sedevacantism? 

Meg,

What did Pope Pius X say about Modernism? Did he say that all Modernists are not at all Catholic..[/size]

Yes, he did. He said that the Modernists were "the worse enemies of the Church": (Pascendi Domini)

thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man
3. Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can justly be surprised that We number such men among the enemies of the Church,

"enemies of the Church"; "with sacrilegious daring reduce to a simple, mere man"
Meg,
can a person who denies the divine nature of Our Lord be considered a Catholic?

Why didn't didn't Pope Pius X excommunicate all of the Modernists?

Why didn't didn't Pope Pius X excommunicate all of the Modernists?

Where does this quote originally come from?

So we finally arrive that Pope Pius X did excommunicate all Modernists:

"By Our Apostolic authority, We repeat and confirm not only that Decree of the Sacred Supreme Congregation, but also that Encyclical Letter of Ours, adding the penalty of Excommunication against all who contradict them."

Now you switch the issue:

but how much force does a Motu Proprio really have?

At the time it was promulgated it had effect for the whole Church.
But I agree that the "excommunication" part did not bind his successors; but it remained in effect until the Papacy of Paul VI.

They'd still be Catholic, yes. Excommunication doesn't take that away. Or the threat of it.

According to Dr. Ott in "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" pg. 311: Not to be counted as members of the Church: "Excommunicati vitandi (CIC 2258).  Excommunicati tolerati, according to the opinion almost generally held today, which is confirmed by CIC 2266, remain members of the Church....". So if the Modernists were "vitandi" as in the case of Loisy and Tyrrell, then they were not members of the Church.

How is a Motu Proprio binding on any future Pope? It's not like it's a de fide docuмent. And besides - the Pope is judged by no one. Canon law does not apply to Popes, so why would a Motu Proprio?

Are you fairly new to Catholicism or sedevacantism?

Meg, you are correct that one Pope's Motu Proprio can be abrogated, in whole or in part, by a future Pope. The Motu Proprio is similar to a regulatory rule. Traditionally it was understood to apply to the regulation of matters in the Papal States. Post Vatican-II it has been used as the vehicle of choice for various rules which the Vatican-II Popes understood would be modified by their successors. So the expectation of a future modification was built-in by using the form of the motu proprio. This was to get the laity into the dialectical back-and-forth that we see with the post Vatican-II era. Two steps forward and one step back. And on and on.

However, the Pope is NEVER above the canon law. Canon Law contains three elements: natural law, divine law, and human law. The Pope is always bound by natural law and divine law. He cannot legitimately change canons that reflect natural or divine law. He can, however, change, using proper legislative procedures, any human law in Canon Law. But until he officially changes the law, he is bound by the current law.

And some statements by previous Popes cannot be changed legitimately by their successors. These statements touch on infallibility when the Pope in question explicitly invokes his Apostolic Authority and binds the Universal Church in perpetuity on matters of Faith and Morals.

Finally, a Pope can never promulgate an unjust or unreasonable dictate that has the binding force of law. Paraphrasing St. Thomas Aquinas, "an unjust law is no law at all." See Article 4 on this page of the Summa Theologiae:

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm