...
...
Certainly, Modernism's roots go back to at least the 18th century, but my question to you all is when was the tipping point? When did these young [priests] who would later become Bishops at Vatican II lose the faith? The 1920s?
It seems to me this is a very complex question.
Pope St. Pius X basically gave the world a life-support extension by his
constancy against the grand sewer of all heresy, and his personal holiness.
But he was clear to warn us that Modernism was only temporarily bowing
its head to his admonitions and would rise again, if not diligently kept
down. One could see this as a fulfillment (at least as a type thereof) of
the prophesy in
St. John's Apocalypse xiii. 3: "And I saw one of its heads
as it were slain to death: and his death's wound was healed. And all
the earth was in admiration after the beast."Without the miraculous intervention of Pope St. Pius X the world was in
for a much worse fate than the terrors of the 20th century, IOW. It could
easily have been worse than 100's of millions of casualties, and that is
exactly what we are presently facing, according to the prophesy of Our
Lady of Fatima, with the looming annihilation of nations.
The faith of Catholics is rewarded with the Mass and Sacraments, but
the loss of faith of Catholics is punished with bad priests, bishops and
popes. That doesn't mean they will all be "invalid" clerics, but perhaps
bad enough to have lost the faith! However, it might be a bit extreme to
presume that even a majority of the bishops at Vat.II had "lost the faith."
Modernism is so dangerous because one can be affected by its contagion
in small doses, so as to have only a small influence, or, the infection can
be worse, in degrees, increasing to a point where the faith is seriously
in danger. But it is possible to still be Catholic and to have only a little
bit of Modernism coursing in one's veins.
This is why +Fellay's statements to CNS a year ago are so disturbing,
because it shows that he defends in principle the possibility of having
a small amount of Modernism running around free in one's mind and
heart, when he said, "We see that, in the discussions, many things which
we would have condemned as being from the Council are, in fact, not
from the Council, but the common understanding of it (...). Many people
understand wrongly the Council (...) the Council presents a religious
freedom that is a freedom that is very, very limited." (Fr. Hewko's quote
from +F's CNS Interview, May 11th, 2012, 1:06 until 1:23,
The RecusantIssue 2, pg. 26).
Would you then say that Bishop Fellay has "lost the faith?" Because that
is a direct and reasonable conclusion from all these matters at hand. It
is not this that the Resistance priests are saying. They are critical of
the Superior's bad judgment and incompetence and imprudence (even
while he claims the opposite in all these matters: right judgment due to
his "grace of state," competence as someone we should "trust," and the
bearer of the virtue of "prudence"). But they do not accuse him of having
"lost the Faith."
They pray for his 'conversion' but at the same time say it would be right
for him to resign. And it would be proper for the priests of the SSPX to
come together to demand his resignation, or else, to expel him.