Pascendi offers among other things a world-class philosophical analysis of modernism.
At the time, many modernists claimed that it didn't apply to them, and in a sense they were right. It was a far more coherent account than many of them had produced, or were capable of producing.
But there were some, like Loisy and Tyrell, who made themselves quite clear. These were the ones who were excommunicated.
The modernist movement was and is like any other movement. Some knew exactly what they were about theoretically. Some had a more limited grasp. Some hadn't a clue, and never got beyond the buzzwords.
The Holy Father is not dumb, but he's not intellectual. There are many people like that. They think and act based on slogans that capture only a part -- and often a mangled part -- of the whole picture.
The Resistance, from the greatest even unto the least, practically to a man, is rather like that.
Effectively, it considers thought and prudence the enemies of true religion.
The only way you can be safe from modernism is to denounce, and denounce, and denounce, from a safe distance.
Bishop Williamson more than once has talked as if love were also one of the enemies. Is the thought that if we loved our enemies, we might get too close to them, and be corrupted?
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, does not seem to have a place in the Resistance.
It is hard to see how the Resistance could ever go forth and teach all nations, because that would expose the evangelists to being poisoned by the world of unbelievers which vastly outnumbers it.
For the Resistance, Our Lord in Matthew 28:20 is instructing the disciples to endanger their faith.
For the Resistance, St. Paul on the Areopagus was endangering his faith.
The only safe thing for a Resistant to do is to denounce Bishop Fellay from a safe distance.
The Resistance is very much like the man who buried his talent.
Some months ago, my SSPX priest son expressed a real concern that the Resistance was going to lead some people into Hell.
At the time, I thought that this was a bit much.
Now I'm not so sure.
Hello John-
I understand the point you are trying to make, but while admitting there is a kernel of truth to what you say, nevertheless think you are overstating the case a bit.
Perhaps, like Bishop Williamson, that is your method, in order to ensure the moral of your story is what lasts, while modern televised man lacks the ability to retain the details.
But for all that, the resistance has played a beneficial part in keeping the SSPX from total implosion.
But for the resistance, you and your son would all be slow-boiled within the Conciliar religion.
Bishop Fellay thanks God his plans were foiled by Our Lady (as does Bishop Tissier).
My point being that both sides of this controversy have said and done things which have caused me to question their motives:
For the resistance, all that matters is promoting the resistance.
For the SSPX, all that matters is the SSPX.
Both would deny that claim, and yet their actions (if we are to judge the contradiction between their party lines and objective reality) seem to bare that out, despite the subjective intentions of various individuals in those parties.
One only need refer to Fr. Pfeiffer's "Two Popes" theory, or to Fr. Le Roux's solipsistic November "Letter to Friends and Benefactors" to understand my point.
I say the SSPX is not totally sunk, but there is plenty there to be leery of.
Neither is the resistance completely off-base in its criticisms (in fact, most are on target).
But both lack the theological purity one would expect from supposedly rigorously orthodox Catholic movements.
Topic: SSPX Superior-General: "I didnt mean to say Pope is a Modernist in theolog (Read 5524 times)