Thank you for the correcting my grammar. I am surprised I let that one slip my detection. It is very humbling.
Now that the priest has been accused of praising a modernist he is almost forced to defend his reputation or perhaps he thinks he will not one to engage his accusers. I don't know.
If it is found to be true then fine. But I never heard of accusing someone of such a serious thing before there is any concrete evidence. Your points about Bp. Fellay are irrelevant in this particular case. You have a gift for over-stating your case.
I have known of examples of SSPX clergy compromising with the world and such but I would never accuse a priest of promoting modernism without evidence.
.
All Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is write a public thesis
opposed to the Modernism of Rudolf Bultmann.
What's so difficult about that?
Could it be that he doesn't have it in him?
Could it be that he's not really so convinced the errors of Bultmann are errors?
If he IS convinced, then why wouldn't he say so and remove all doubt?
.
.
.
The OBVIOUS Reason
What is the OBVIOUS reason Fr. Pagliarani will not publicly denounce the errors of Rudolf Bultmann,
that is,
Why won't he produce a reasoned refutation of some of Bultmann's errors for all to see?
Why would he, instead, likely go on mentioning those errors in his curriculum,
as with other heresies and proximate heresies like them, without censure,
as other SSPX rectors in other seminaries have been doing,
IOW, just as business as usual,
according to Benedict XVI's hermeneutic of continuity,
as if this had not happened?
.
The burden of proof does not lie with Fr. Pagliarani but with those who have accused him. Fr. Hewko, as good of a priest as he is, (I have no doubt about that), should not have ran with the seminarian's story.
While I agree, burden of proof... should not have run, NONETHELESS, the response of the Menzingen-denizens is sufficient. Or, that is, lack of sufficiency thereof.
EXAMPLE:
If what Fr. Hewko had said had been false? Then, it would be an utterly simple thing to prove it as such, in one act: all Fr. Pagliarani would have to do is produce a denunciation of Bultmann's errors. Simple. Case closed. And Fr. Hewko would jump at the chance to apologize and publicly eat his own words, I'm sure. Everything would be settled!!
But he'll never get the chance to eat his words because Fr. Pagliarani isn't going to make any such denouncement of Bultmann. That's not a criticism of Fr. Pagliarani, but rather a statement of fact, that is, a fact that some are unwilling to face.
How do I know that's the truth?
Well, the answer to that should be obvious. Question: What's so 'obvious' about it?
Hint: Ask Bishop Fellay why this is obvious, and watch his response. He won't have one. He'll change topics.
.
Topic: IS SSPX Seminary Promoting Bultmann? (Read 8280 times)