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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.