I learned something new about SSPX

[Stubborn]

Right.  Being able to show that it isn't a heresy proves that it is a heresy.   

Notard, I hope you are reading this.  How can you let such absurdity trouble you?

You believe Pope St. Pius X was in error even though everything he proclaimed has proven he was not. Why you choose to deny what has happened to the Bride of Christ only you and God know.

You still cannot provide a pre-V2 source showing that the priest facing the people is not Protestant. You offered, now feel free to deliver.

*OR* you may feel free to show that facing the people instead of God in the tabernacle has always been the way God wanted to be worshiped but the previous 2000 years were all a terrible mistake........ either way works for me.
   
 

[INPEFESS]

Anyone who argues that a specific denial of a teaching is necessary for a heresy to be present doesn't have any idea why Modernism is and why it is condemned. This was the case with the semi-Arians of the early Church, who never explicitly denied the Faith. Their heresy was only implicit in what they didn't say rather than for what they did. They used an ambiguous creed to mask their false beliefs; and it was this lack of explicit denial that made them all the more dangerous and difficult to detect. The Church condemned this methodology.

Modernism (and its neo-Modernist counterpart) is very similar in its methodology, only it isn't just another heresy. It isn't a simple denial of one article of faith; rather, it breeds all kinds of them by proposing principles which lead to erroneous conclusions. Modernism itself doesn't deny the articles of faith; instead, the individual uses Modernism as a heresy machine to generate his own personal denials. St. Pius X called it the father of all heresies and said that it posed the greatest threat to the Church, since it doesn't come right and deny any teaching specifically. The denial is in the logical conclusion of its philosophical propositions, which are presented in a series of false principles condemned by the Church. The Modernists apply these false principles to Christian theology in such a way as to reorganize it, restructure it, and re-express it in light of modern thought. Thus, the Nouvelle Theologie was born through which the Modernists churned out ambiguous phrases, vague theological terms, and novel concepts that lacked precise definitions. Slowly, generation after generation, as St. Pius X warned, they advanced the application of these principles through these novel concepts to effect a massive overhaul of the Catholic Faith and, what St. Pius X called, a "universal apostasy." The "living tradition" is the euphemism for this corrosive process, and St. Pius X warned that it would continue to spread because of the indifference of Catholics, who would tolerate with the most indifference "this pestiferous wind of impiety."

If you're looking for a specific denial of a teaching, you're not going to find it. If a specific denial were necessary, then Modernism could never have been condemned by anyone, not even St. Pius X, since that is not what characterizes it as a heresy. The error is in its erroneous foundational principles which, when applied to Catholicism, only implicitly deny the Church's teachings by theological extension. I insist that the primary reason this crisis has endured so long is due to ignorance of Modernism: if Catholics heeded the advice of St. Pius X, they would not have made so many excuses for its fruit. Catholics say they know what it is, but they don't really know. It's just another heresy to them. They say, "Unless there is a specific denial of a teaching from the extraordinary magisterium, then it isn't so." And while the Church collapses around them, they blame it on bad management and a puppet pope whose hands are tied, forgetting Who really guides the Church. And so, in arguing against the presence of Modernism, they expose that they have no idea what it really is.

[Parmandur]

Anyone who argues that a specific denial of a teaching is necessary for a heresy to be present doesn't have any idea why Modernism is and why it is condemned. This was the case with the semi-Arians of the early Church, who never explicitly denied the Faith. Their heresy was only implicit in what they didn't say rather than for what they did. They used an ambiguous creed to mask their false beliefs; and it was this lack of explicit denial that made them all the more dangerous and difficult to detect. The Church condemned this methodology.

Modernism (and its neo-Modernist counterpart) is very similar in its methodology, only it isn't just another heresy. It isn't a simple denial of one article of faith; rather, it breeds them by proposing principles which lead to erroneous conclusions. St. Pius X called it the father of all heresies and said that it posed the greatest threat to the Church, since it doesn't come right and deny any teaching specifically. The denial is in the logical conclusion of its philosophical propositions, which are presented in a series of false principles condemned by the Church. The Modernists apply these false principles to Christian theology in such a way as to reorganize it, restructure it, and re-express it in light of modern thought. Thus, the Nouvelle Theologie was born through which the Modernists churned out ambiguous phrases, vague theological terms, and novel concepts that lacked precise definitions. Slowly, generation after generation, as St. Pius X warned, they would advance the application of these principles through these novel concepts to effect a massive overhaul of the Catholic Faith and, what he called, a "universal apostasy." The "living tradition" is the euphemism for this corrosive process, and St. Pius X warned that it would continue to spread because of the indifference of Catholics, who would tolerate "this pestiferous wind of impiety."

If you're looking for a specific denial of a teaching, you're not going to find it. If a specific denial were necessary, then Modernism could never have been condemned by anyone, not even St. Pius X, since that is not what characterizes it as a heresy. The error is in its erroneous foundational principles which, when applied to Catholicism, only implicitly deny the Church's teachings by theological extension. I insist that the primary reason this crisis has endures is due to ignorance of Modernism. Catholics say they know what it is, but they don't really know. It's just another heresy to them. They say, "Unless there is a specific denial of a teaching from the extraordinary magisterium, then it isn't so." And while the Church collapses around them, they blame it on bad management and a puppet pope whose hands are tied, forgetting Who really guides the Church. And so, in arguing against the presence of Modernism, they expose that they have no idea what it really is.

The semi-Arians were the duped, not the dupers.  The Arians were the ones who convinced the semi-Arians that St. Athanasius was a Modalist, and it took serious work over a generation for the semi-Arians (who were always the majority) to see that St. Athanasius was not teaching a novelty, but Arius.

[INPEFESS]

Anyone who argues that a specific denial of a teaching is necessary for a heresy to be present doesn't have any idea why Modernism is and why it is condemned. This was the case with the semi-Arians of the early Church, who never explicitly denied the Faith. Their heresy was only implicit in what they didn't say rather than for what they did. They used an ambiguous creed to mask their false beliefs; and it was this lack of explicit denial that made them all the more dangerous and difficult to detect. The Church condemned this methodology.

Modernism (and its neo-Modernist counterpart) is very similar in its methodology, only it isn't just another heresy. It isn't a simple denial of one article of faith; rather, it breeds them by proposing principles which lead to erroneous conclusions. St. Pius X called it the father of all heresies and said that it posed the greatest threat to the Church, since it doesn't come right and deny any teaching specifically. The denial is in the logical conclusion of its philosophical propositions, which are presented in a series of false principles condemned by the Church. The Modernists apply these false principles to Christian theology in such a way as to reorganize it, restructure it, and re-express it in light of modern thought. Thus, the Nouvelle Theologie was born through which the Modernists churned out ambiguous phrases, vague theological terms, and novel concepts that lacked precise definitions. Slowly, generation after generation, as St. Pius X warned, they would advance the application of these principles through these novel concepts to effect a massive overhaul of the Catholic Faith and, what he called, a "universal apostasy." The "living tradition" is the euphemism for this corrosive process, and St. Pius X warned that it would continue to spread because of the indifference of Catholics, who would tolerate "this pestiferous wind of impiety."

If you're looking for a specific denial of a teaching, you're not going to find it. If a specific denial were necessary, then Modernism could never have been condemned by anyone, not even St. Pius X, since that is not what characterizes it as a heresy. The error is in its erroneous foundational principles which, when applied to Catholicism, only implicitly deny the Church's teachings by theological extension. I insist that the primary reason this crisis has endures is due to ignorance of Modernism. Catholics say they know what it is, but they don't really know. It's just another heresy to them. They say, "Unless there is a specific denial of a teaching from the extraordinary magisterium, then it isn't so." And while the Church collapses around them, they blame it on bad management and a puppet pope whose hands are tied, forgetting Who really guides the Church. And so, in arguing against the presence of Modernism, they expose that they have no idea what it really is.

The semi-Arians were the duped, not the dupers.  The Arians were the ones who convinced the semi-Arians that St. Athanasius was a Modalist, and it took serious work over a generation for the semi-Arians (who were always the majority) to see that St. Athanasius was not teaching a novelty, but Arius.

That wasn't what I was saying. You will see what I am talking about here.

[Parmandur]

Anyone who argues that a specific denial of a teaching is necessary for a heresy to be present doesn't have any idea why Modernism is and why it is condemned. This was the case with the semi-Arians of the early Church, who never explicitly denied the Faith. Their heresy was only implicit in what they didn't say rather than for what they did. They used an ambiguous creed to mask their false beliefs; and it was this lack of explicit denial that made them all the more dangerous and difficult to detect. The Church condemned this methodology.

Modernism (and its neo-Modernist counterpart) is very similar in its methodology, only it isn't just another heresy. It isn't a simple denial of one article of faith; rather, it breeds them by proposing principles which lead to erroneous conclusions. St. Pius X called it the father of all heresies and said that it posed the greatest threat to the Church, since it doesn't come right and deny any teaching specifically. The denial is in the logical conclusion of its philosophical propositions, which are presented in a series of false principles condemned by the Church. The Modernists apply these false principles to Christian theology in such a way as to reorganize it, restructure it, and re-express it in light of modern thought. Thus, the Nouvelle Theologie was born through which the Modernists churned out ambiguous phrases, vague theological terms, and novel concepts that lacked precise definitions. Slowly, generation after generation, as St. Pius X warned, they would advance the application of these principles through these novel concepts to effect a massive overhaul of the Catholic Faith and, what he called, a "universal apostasy." The "living tradition" is the euphemism for this corrosive process, and St. Pius X warned that it would continue to spread because of the indifference of Catholics, who would tolerate "this pestiferous wind of impiety."

If you're looking for a specific denial of a teaching, you're not going to find it. If a specific denial were necessary, then Modernism could never have been condemned by anyone, not even St. Pius X, since that is not what characterizes it as a heresy. The error is in its erroneous foundational principles which, when applied to Catholicism, only implicitly deny the Church's teachings by theological extension. I insist that the primary reason this crisis has endures is due to ignorance of Modernism. Catholics say they know what it is, but they don't really know. It's just another heresy to them. They say, "Unless there is a specific denial of a teaching from the extraordinary magisterium, then it isn't so." And while the Church collapses around them, they blame it on bad management and a puppet pope whose hands are tied, forgetting Who really guides the Church. And so, in arguing against the presence of Modernism, they expose that they have no idea what it really is.

The semi-Arians were the duped, not the dupers.  The Arians were the ones who convinced the semi-Arians that St. Athanasius was a Modalist, and it took serious work over a generation for the semi-Arians (who were always the majority) to see that St. Athanasius was not teaching a novelty, but Arius.

That wasn't what I was saying. You will see what I am talking about here.

I wasn't addressing your whole post, I will admit.  But at the base of it is a major historical misunderstanding of the Arian crisis, and I think that needs to be addressed.  Semi-Arians were not more sneaky Arians; they were conservatives who were skittish about novel terminology.  The Arians took advantage of their conservative nature to spread error and confusion, but anyone who was a "semi-Arian" was, properly, speaking, not an Arian.

[INPEFESS]

Anyone who argues that a specific denial of a teaching is necessary for a heresy to be present doesn't have any idea why Modernism is and why it is condemned. This was the case with the semi-Arians of the early Church, who never explicitly denied the Faith. Their heresy was only implicit in what they didn't say rather than for what they did. They used an ambiguous creed to mask their false beliefs; and it was this lack of explicit denial that made them all the more dangerous and difficult to detect. The Church condemned this methodology.

Modernism (and its neo-Modernist counterpart) is very similar in its methodology, only it isn't just another heresy. It isn't a simple denial of one article of faith; rather, it breeds them by proposing principles which lead to erroneous conclusions. St. Pius X called it the father of all heresies and said that it posed the greatest threat to the Church, since it doesn't come right and deny any teaching specifically. The denial is in the logical conclusion of its philosophical propositions, which are presented in a series of false principles condemned by the Church. The Modernists apply these false principles to Christian theology in such a way as to reorganize it, restructure it, and re-express it in light of modern thought. Thus, the Nouvelle Theologie was born through which the Modernists churned out ambiguous phrases, vague theological terms, and novel concepts that lacked precise definitions. Slowly, generation after generation, as St. Pius X warned, they would advance the application of these principles through these novel concepts to effect a massive overhaul of the Catholic Faith and, what he called, a "universal apostasy." The "living tradition" is the euphemism for this corrosive process, and St. Pius X warned that it would continue to spread because of the indifference of Catholics, who would tolerate "this pestiferous wind of impiety."

If you're looking for a specific denial of a teaching, you're not going to find it. If a specific denial were necessary, then Modernism could never have been condemned by anyone, not even St. Pius X, since that is not what characterizes it as a heresy. The error is in its erroneous foundational principles which, when applied to Catholicism, only implicitly deny the Church's teachings by theological extension. I insist that the primary reason this crisis has endures is due to ignorance of Modernism. Catholics say they know what it is, but they don't really know. It's just another heresy to them. They say, "Unless there is a specific denial of a teaching from the extraordinary magisterium, then it isn't so." And while the Church collapses around them, they blame it on bad management and a puppet pope whose hands are tied, forgetting Who really guides the Church. And so, in arguing against the presence of Modernism, they expose that they have no idea what it really is.

The semi-Arians were the duped, not the dupers.  The Arians were the ones who convinced the semi-Arians that St. Athanasius was a Modalist, and it took serious work over a generation for the semi-Arians (who were always the majority) to see that St. Athanasius was not teaching a novelty, but Arius.

That wasn't what I was saying. You will see what I am talking about here.

I wasn't addressing your whole post, I will admit.  But at the base of it is a major historical misunderstanding of the Arian crisis, and I think that needs to be addressed.  Semi-Arians were not more sneaky Arians; they were conservatives who were skittish about novel terminology.  The Arians took advantage of their conservative nature to spread error and confusion, but anyone who was a "semi-Arian" was, properly, speaking, not an Arian.

My point was to draw attention to the condemnation of the methodology of semi-Arianism. I don't know whether each individual labeled as a semi-Arians was a heretic or not (in fact, they had some supporters who were later declared saints by the Church), since there seem to be different opinions on the matter, and I don't think one can generalize the entire group as being of good will or bad will. From different sources I have read, they were not all entirely innocent. Many Arians used it as a vehicle to avoid detection. There were many (perhaps most) who were confused, no doubt. But the point of bringing up the example is to show that the Church found the methodology of the semi-Arian creed to be an insufficient profession of the Faith, regardless of who was or was not malicious in holding to it. Despite all of this, however, your point is well taken.

[JayneK]

Right.  Being able to show that it isn't a heresy proves that it is a heresy.   

Notard, I hope you are reading this.  How can you let such absurdity trouble you?

You believe Pope St. Pius X was in error even though everything he proclaimed has proven he was not. Why you choose to deny what has happened to the Bride of Christ only you and God know.

You still cannot provide a pre-V2 source showing that the priest facing the people is not Protestant. You offered, now feel free to deliver.

*OR* you may feel free to show that facing the people instead of God in the tabernacle has always been the way God wanted to be worshiped but the previous 2000 years were all a terrible mistake........ either way works for me.
 

See, Notard.  Stubborn is not even coherent.  Why would you seriously consider that he might be right?  His posts are clearly devoid of sense and reason.

[JayneK]

Anyone who argues that a specific denial of a teaching is necessary for a heresy to be present doesn't have any idea why Modernism is and why it is condemned. This was the case with the semi-Arians of the early Church, who never explicitly denied the Faith. Their heresy was only implicit in what they didn't say rather than for what they did. They used an ambiguous creed to mask their false beliefs; and it was this lack of explicit denial that made them all the more dangerous and difficult to detect. The Church condemned this methodology.

Modernism (and its neo-Modernist counterpart) is very similar in its methodology, only it isn't just another heresy. It isn't a simple denial of one article of faith; rather, it breeds all kinds of them by proposing principles which lead to erroneous conclusions. Modernism itself doesn't deny the articles of faith; instead, the individual uses Modernism as a heresy machine to generate his own personal denials. St. Pius X called it the father of all heresies and said that it posed the greatest threat to the Church, since it doesn't come right and deny any teaching specifically. The denial is in the logical conclusion of its philosophical propositions, which are presented in a series of false principles condemned by the Church. The Modernists apply these false principles to Christian theology in such a way as to reorganize it, restructure it, and re-express it in light of modern thought. Thus, the Nouvelle Theologie was born through which the Modernists churned out ambiguous phrases, vague theological terms, and novel concepts that lacked precise definitions. Slowly, generation after generation, as St. Pius X warned, they advanced the application of these principles through these novel concepts to effect a massive overhaul of the Catholic Faith and, what St. Pius X called, a "universal apostasy." The "living tradition" is the euphemism for this corrosive process, and St. Pius X warned that it would continue to spread because of the indifference of Catholics, who would tolerate with the most indifference "this pestiferous wind of impiety."

If you're looking for a specific denial of a teaching, you're not going to find it. If a specific denial were necessary, then Modernism could never have been condemned by anyone, not even St. Pius X, since that is not what characterizes it as a heresy. The error is in its erroneous foundational principles which, when applied to Catholicism, only implicitly deny the Church's teachings by theological extension. I insist that the primary reason this crisis has endured so long is due to ignorance of Modernism: if Catholics heeded the advice of St. Pius X, they would not have made so many excuses for its fruit. Catholics say they know what it is, but they don't really know. It's just another heresy to them. They say, "Unless there is a specific denial of a teaching from the extraordinary magisterium, then it isn't so." And while the Church collapses around them, they blame it on bad management and a puppet pope whose hands are tied, forgetting Who really guides the Church. And so, in arguing against the presence of Modernism, they expose that they have no idea what it really is.

If being vague is the equivalent of heresy then your vague definition of modernism makes you a heretic.  You have such a nebulous meaning for it that practically anything can be labelled as modernism.  I cannot imagine St. Thomas going on about heresies that are incapable of definition.

[INPEFESS]

Anyone who argues that a specific denial of a teaching is necessary for a heresy to be present doesn't have any idea why Modernism is and why it is condemned. This was the case with the semi-Arians of the early Church, who never explicitly denied the Faith. Their heresy was only implicit in what they didn't say rather than for what they did. They used an ambiguous creed to mask their false beliefs; and it was this lack of explicit denial that made them all the more dangerous and difficult to detect. The Church condemned this methodology.

Modernism (and its neo-Modernist counterpart) is very similar in its methodology, only it isn't just another heresy. It isn't a simple denial of one article of faith; rather, it breeds all kinds of them by proposing principles which lead to erroneous conclusions. Modernism itself doesn't deny the articles of faith; instead, the individual uses Modernism as a heresy machine to generate his own personal denials. St. Pius X called it the father of all heresies and said that it posed the greatest threat to the Church, since it doesn't come right and deny any teaching specifically. The denial is in the logical conclusion of its philosophical propositions, which are presented in a series of false principles condemned by the Church. The Modernists apply these false principles to Christian theology in such a way as to reorganize it, restructure it, and re-express it in light of modern thought. Thus, the Nouvelle Theologie was born through which the Modernists churned out ambiguous phrases, vague theological terms, and novel concepts that lacked precise definitions. Slowly, generation after generation, as St. Pius X warned, they advanced the application of these principles through these novel concepts to effect a massive overhaul of the Catholic Faith and, what St. Pius X called, a "universal apostasy." The "living tradition" is the euphemism for this corrosive process, and St. Pius X warned that it would continue to spread because of the indifference of Catholics, who would tolerate with the most indifference "this pestiferous wind of impiety."

If you're looking for a specific denial of a teaching, you're not going to find it. If a specific denial were necessary, then Modernism could never have been condemned by anyone, not even St. Pius X, since that is not what characterizes it as a heresy. The error is in its erroneous foundational principles which, when applied to Catholicism, only implicitly deny the Church's teachings by theological extension. I insist that the primary reason this crisis has endured so long is due to ignorance of Modernism: if Catholics heeded the advice of St. Pius X, they would not have made so many excuses for its fruit. Catholics say they know what it is, but they don't really know. It's just another heresy to them. They say, "Unless there is a specific denial of a teaching from the extraordinary magisterium, then it isn't so." And while the Church collapses around them, they blame it on bad management and a puppet pope whose hands are tied, forgetting Who really guides the Church. And so, in arguing against the presence of Modernism, they expose that they have no idea what it really is.

If being vague is the equivalent of heresy then your vague definition of modernism makes you a heretic.  You have such a nebulous meaning for it that practically anything can be labelled as modernism.  I cannot imagine St. Thomas going on about heresies that are incapable of definition.

I did not attempt to define it. I simply outlined a few of its characteristics. If you want the definition of it, or if you want to know exactly what it proposes, then please consult the teachings of the Church, which have been defining it and condemning it in all of its various forms for centuries.

[Stubborn]

Right.  Being able to show that it isn't a heresy proves that it is a heresy.   

Notard, I hope you are reading this.  How can you let such absurdity trouble you?

You believe Pope St. Pius X was in error even though everything he proclaimed has proven he was not. Why you choose to deny what has happened to the Bride of Christ only you and God know.

You still cannot provide a pre-V2 source showing that the priest facing the people is not Protestant. You offered, now feel free to deliver.

*OR* you may feel free to show that facing the people instead of God in the tabernacle has always been the way God wanted to be worshiped but the previous 2000 years were all a terrible mistake........ either way works for me.
 

See, Notard.  Stubborn is not even coherent.  Why would you seriously consider that he might be right?  His posts are clearly devoid of sense and reason.

I know you were born pre-V2 but I'm still waiting for the official pre-V2 teaching, not another unsubstantiated NO theologial opinion.