Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: AnthonyPadua on November 26, 2023, 12:17:23 AM
-
In his recent video the dimonds call out 'Bishop' Stickland as a modernist. Despite being considered 'conservative' Stickland still beliefs the heretical garbage taught by vatican 2 and anti-popes JP2 and Ben 16.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlZd_Y9IVgI
-
It depends on if he adheres to the propositions condemned in Pascendi. Nowadays trads will throw the term "modernist" around without taking into account whether the person actually adheres to the tenants of modernism or if the individual is just a liberal. He could be a liberal without being modernist. The prayer lead by +Strickland also isn't necessarily bad itself. It is joining heretics in public prayers lead by them that is a sin against the faith, not leading a prayer where heretics may happen to join in in. The Holy Office under Pius XII permitted meetings where a Catholic says a Catholic prayer and heretics joined in. Furthermore, St. Pius X allowed a Melkite school to tolerate Eastern schismatic students saying the responses during the liturgy in the context of conversion being likely for the schismatics. If anyone wants citations, private message me.
-
Bishop Strickland is likely on a pilgrimage of grace, but we've yet to see his renunciation of Vatican II and the Novus ordo missae. Until he comes forth and does this, he can't be a credible critic of newChurch or spokesman for the faithful remnant.
-
Another one trying to serve 2 masters
-
Strickland is just another conservative Novus Ordo prelate. Novus Ordo Religionist. Modernist. Same difference.
-
I’m not a fan of the Dimond’s, but this video was quite good.
-
No, he's not a Modernist. He's got other issues surrounding religious indifferentism and ecuмenism.
Strickland's entire contention with Bergoglio was that Strickland held the Bergoglio was not being faithful to the Deposit of Revelation, whereas Bergoglio countered by claiming that Catholic doctrine could change (which is essentially what Modernism is).
People throw around the term Modernism without any real understanding of what it actually means.
Now, I haven't watched the Dimond video, so I don't know if THEY used the term Modernist, or that was just attributed to them by the OP.
-
It depends on if he adheres to the propositions condemned in Pascendi. Nowadays trads will throw the term "modernist" around without taking into account whether the person actually adheres to the tenants of modernism or if the individual is just a liberal. He could be a liberal without being modernist.
THIS ^^^
-
Novus Ordo Religionist. Modernist. Same difference.
Absolutely false, as per Cryptinox's post.
-
No, he's not a Modernist. He's got other issues surrounding religious indifferentism and ecuмenism.
Strickland's entire contention with Bergoglio was that Strickland held the Bergoglio was not being faithful to the Deposit of Revelation, whereas Bergoglio countered by claiming that Catholic doctrine could change (which is essentially what Modernism is).
People throw around the term Modernism without any real understanding of what it actually means.
Now, I haven't watched the Dimond video, so I don't know if THEY used the term Modernist, or that was just attributed to them by the OP.
So...are you saying he's a heretic, just not of the Modernist variety?
-
No, he's not a Modernist. He's got other issues surrounding religious indifferentism and ecuмenism.
Strickland's entire contention with Bergoglio was that Strickland held the Bergoglio was not being faithful to the Deposit of Revelation, whereas Bergoglio countered by claiming that Catholic doctrine could change (which is essentially what Modernism is).
People throw around the term Modernism without any real understanding of what it actually means.
Now, I haven't watched the Dimond video, so I don't know if THEY used the term Modernist, or that was just attributed to them by the OP.
Wouldn’t you agree that most NO prelates (especially more conservative ones) are intelligent enough to realize that the Catholic Church taught, for nearly 2 millennia, that religious indifferentism and ecuмenism were contrary to the first commandment?
-
No, he's not a Modernist. He's got other issues surrounding religious indifferentism and ecuмenism.
.
Indifferentism and ecuмenism are part of modernism. Modernism is basically subjectivisim, that the faith comes from within. Thus, it makes no sense to condemn others for having a faith that comes from within them, even if such faith is different from ours. That's indifferentism and ecuмenism.
-
.
Indifferentism and ecuмenism are part of modernism. Modernism is basically subjectivisim, that the faith comes from within. Thus, it makes no sense to condemn others for having a faith that comes from within them, even if such faith is different from ours. That's indifferentism and ecuмenism.
This is what I would agree with. Faith, to Modernists, is something that emanates from within. It is subjective to each individual. That is how it can manage to retain the heresies of religious indifferentism while denouncing the more liberal aspects of Bergoglian faith. To the modernists, Faith can evolve and change meaning overtime as Ladislaus pointed out, but how that is interpeted by each modernist can be very different. One modernist could deny the literal meaning of Genesis (Cardinal Pell comes to mind), while another could agree that Adam and Eve did exist. Modernists do not necessarily agree on their heresies among each other. But subjectivism is the hallmark they all share.
-
No, he's not a Modernist. He's got other issues surrounding religious indifferentism and ecuмenism.
Strickland's entire contention with Bergoglio was that Strickland held the Bergoglio was not being faithful to the Deposit of Revelation, whereas Bergoglio countered by claiming that Catholic doctrine could change (which is essentially what Modernism is).
People throw around the term Modernism without any real understanding of what it actually means.
Now, I haven't watched the Dimond video, so I don't know if THEY used the term Modernist, or that was just attributed to them by the OP.
Yes, the Deposit of Faith per the NO. So, who are the Modernists in the NO? Anyone?
-
Modernism is basically subjectivisim ...
No. Modernism is related to subjectivism but is not subjectivism. Religious indifferentism stems from subjectivism.
To put it bluntly, all the Trads who claim that non-Catholics can be saved by subjectively following what they consider to be the truth would then be "Modernists" by your definition of the term ... and this includes the vast majority of sedevacantists.
-
Wouldn’t you agree that most NO prelates (especially more conservative ones) are intelligent enough to realize that the Catholic Church taught, for nearly 2 millennia, that religious indifferentism and ecuмenism were contrary to the first commandment?
I would have thought that most Trads would realize this, but they don't. We have constant statements from Trad clergy holding that non-Catholics can be saved.
-
Bottom Line: someone who holds that there's an objective Deposit of Faith that does not change and is not subject to revision ... is not a Modernist. That is to deny the very essence of Modernism.
-
Bottom Line: someone who holds that there's an objective Deposit of Faith that does not change and is not subject to revision ... is not a Modernist. That is to deny the very essence of Modernism.
^^THIS^^ He’s mistaken about many things, but he’s not a modernist in his thinking.
-
Wouldn’t you agree that most NO prelates (especially more conservative ones) are intelligent enough to realize that the Catholic Church taught, for nearly 2 millennia, that religious indifferentism and ecuмenism were contrary to the first commandment?
Apparently Strickland thinks Bergoglio isn't faithful to the Deposit of Faith but Ratzinger etal were. ::)
I'm just wondering how long it will be until I'm called a "Strickland hater".
-
Bishop Strickland is likely on a pilgrimage of grace, but we've yet to see his renunciation of Vatican II and the Novus ordo missae. Until he comes forth and does this, he can't be a credible critic of newChurch or spokesman for the faithful remnant.
Incredulous, why do you describe Strickland's journey as a *possible* pilgrimage of grace, yet +Vigano is on the same path, and he's called out V2 and the new mass, but you don't consider him a credible critic?
-
Bottom Line: someone who holds that there's an objective Deposit of Faith that does not change and is not subject to revision ... is not a Modernist. That is to deny the very essence of Modernism.
Well, let's subvert that clear definition with gratuitous distinctions like sedeprivationists do, such as that Francis did not really accept the papacy because his understanding of the papacy is heretical, making it objectively subjectively not the object of his will. ;)
The same could be said of Strickland, his deposit of faith includes teachings of V2, JP2, etc. which attempt to change and actually contradict the deposit of faith, therefore objectively subjectively he believes in a changing deposit of faith.
But actually I'd expand the definition, I'd classify anyone who believes the Magisterium needs interpreting as a Modernist.
If the dogmas were understood as they were written and not according to interpretations of "approved theologians" there would've been no Vatican II.
-
Bottom Line: someone who holds that there's an objective Deposit of Faith that does not change and is not subject to revision ... is not a Modernist. That is to deny the very essence of Modernism.
Pope St. Pius X defines Modernism as the "synthesis of all heresies" (#39). It seems rather impertinent to limit Modernism to just one narrow issue.
-
Well, let's subvert that clear definition with gratuitous distinctions like sedeprivationists do, such as that Francis did not really accept the papacy because his understanding of the papacy is heretical, making it objectively subjectively not the object of his will. ;)
The same could be said of Strickland, his deposit of faith includes teachings of V2, JP2, etc. which attempt to change and actually contradict the deposit of faith, therefore objectively subjectively he believes in a changing deposit of faith.
But actually I'd expand the definition, I'd classify anyone who believes the Magisterium needs interpreting as a Modernist.
If the dogmas were understood as they were written and not according to interpretations of "approved theologians" there would've been no Vatican II.
The issue is one can understand dogmas "as they were written" multiple ways. If someone says "You must believe in the Trinity and Incarnation to be saved" the person doesn't mean saved from a natural disaster or from dying in a battle.
-
The issue is one can understand dogmas "as they were written" multiple ways. If someone says "You must believe in the Trinity and Incarnation to be saved" the person doesn't mean saved from a natural disaster or from dying in a battle.
You're disagreeing with Vatican I.
Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Sess. 3, Chap. 2 on Revelation: “Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding.”
Your example is bad, everyone knows what being saved means.
-
There are a group of sedevacantists who promote the notion that the meaning of the Church's doctrine can only be known through the interpretation of "theologians". This is wrong, and I've called this "Cekadism" in the past, where Father Cekada has asserted that theologians represent the Ecclesia Dicens. Now, it's possible to MIS-interpret the teachings of the Magisterium, but the intepretations of theologians are not necessarily definitive. Much damage has been done to Catholic doctrine by the theologians deciding to "interpret" away Catholic dogma, particularly where it comes to EENS, so much so that many sedevacantists now hold that it's heretical to believe that only Catholics can be saved. In other words, they've come to "interpret" EENS dogma as "meaning" the opposite of what it actually says. Recall also that a near unanimity of these same theologians produced and approved of the docuмents of Vatican II. Bishop Guerard des Lauriers is the only legitimate "theologian" (who could be considered such in the sense of the word) who did not accept those.
Msgr. Fenton (also an actual theologian) had this to say about the role of theologians in the Church:
There is, of course, a definite task incuмbent upon the private theologians in the Church’s process of bringing the teachings of the papal encyclicals to the people. The private theologian is obligated and privileged to study these docuмents, to arrive at an understanding of what the Holy Father actually teaches, and then to aid in the task of bringing this body of truth to the people. The Holy Father, however, not the private theologian, remains the doctrinal authority. The theologian is expected to bring out the content of the Pope’s actual teaching, not to subject that teaching to the type of criticism he would have a right to impose on the writings of another private theologian.
Thus, when we review or attempt to evaluate the works of a private theologian, we are perfectly within our rights in attempting to show that a certain portion of his doctrine is authentic Catholic teaching or at least based upon such teaching, and to assert that some other portions of that work simply express ideas current at the time the books were written. The pronouncements of the Roman Pontiffs, acting as the authorized teachers of the Catholic Church, are definitely not subject to that sort of evaluation.
Unfortunately the tendency to misinterpret the function of the private theologian in the Church’s doctrinal work is not something now in the English Catholic literature. Cardinal Newman in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (certainly the leat valuable of his published works), supports the bizarre thesis that the final determination of what is really condemned in an authentic ecclesiastical pronouncement is the work of private theologians, rather than of the particular organ of the ecclesia docens which has actually formulated the condemnation. The faithful could, according to his theory, find what a pontifical docuмent actually means, not from the content of the docuмent itself, but from the speculations of the theologians.
-
Bishop Strickland is likely on a pilgrimage of grace, but we've yet to see his renunciation of Vatican II and the Novus ordo missae. Until he comes forth and does this, he can't be a credible critic of newChurch or spokesman for the faithful remnant.
I agree.
Strickland is probably fine with the (false) ecuмenism of VII and the post-conciliar church. He probably doesn't see anything wrong with JP2 or B16 style ecuмenism. But he does, and rightly so, see a problem with the attack on morality that Bergolio/Francis engages in and supports. I doubt that he'll change and become a traditionalist. He seems content to fight against certain evils, but doesn't seem to see all of the evil. Maybe that's okay? I dunno. A man can only fight against so many things at once.
-
I agree.
Strickland is probably fine with the (false) ecuмenism of VII and the post-conciliar church. He probably doesn't see anything wrong with JP2 or B16 style ecuмenism. But he does, and rightly so, see a problem with the attack on morality that Bergolio/Francis engages in and supports. I doubt that he'll change and become a traditionalist. He seems content to fight against certain evils, but doesn't seem to see all of the evil. Maybe that's okay? I dunno. A man can only fight against so many things at once.
Really the only way I see Strickland moving toward Traditional Catholicism is now that he's a "cancelled" bishop, he might get in touch with people like +Vigano or +Lenga. Maybe now that he's been exiled, he might start offering the Tridentine Mass. That's what happened with +Vigano, and we know that the Traditional Mass teaches the faith and the "sense" of the faith better than any textbooks can.