Modernist Heresy

[Victorious]

Ordering the construction of the Canon Law of 1917 based on the that time already obsoleted beneficiary system

Concentrating on the fight for the restoration of the papal state, and letting the media completely taken over by anti-church owners.

Probably the forced complete rewriting of the psalter for the Roman Breviary was mistake too, as helped the sentiment that the liturgy may be changed by papal order.

St Pius X was saint, and Christ stood behind his decisions, but at least some decisions were not the best one for the long term interest of the Church. God has to deal with the human errancy.

I was asking for things he said that were erroneous. The poster I was responding to was critical of Catholics who think everything he said or wrote had the voice of God completely behind it.

 

[Timothy17]

Moderators, please delete this post.

Thank you,
Tim

 

[JackQ]

In the views of some people, any changes after Pius X are “Heresies”. They tend to believe that everything that he ever said or wrote, had the complete voice of God behind it, and nothing he supported could ever be changed by anyone.

These folks tend to reject Vatican II, and all of the fruits of that Council.

I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and that he would NOT allow a Council of the Church to lead it astray. I believe that to venerate the past to the degree that some do, is nothing short of apostacy.

I think Vatican II was a legitimate Council. My purpose in posting the list was to show what Modernism as a heresy is, and, by implication, what it is not.

 

[laszlo]

I was asking for things he said that were erroneous. The poster I was responding to was critical of Catholics who think everything he said or wrote had the voice of God completely behind it.

It is a modern (not modernist but new) error to overemphasize the verbs, things what were said. The things what one do, and the things what one does not do (although should be done) are more important. You cannot judge one merely examining what he declared. You shall examine the overall result of one’s life.

St Pius X started a process which lead to the changes in the recent Church. Part of them is good, part of them is bad. God had to deal with that, and we had to recognize it.

 

[Iotaunum]

Most criticisms of the novus ordo are of its junk english translation (finally being corrected), THe irreverence of many “celebrants” and the all out banality and use of “profane” musical styles and instruments (Profane means outside the temple, irreligious, not-sacred), and the Fact that it is not celebrated Ad Orientim.

Many of these things are AMericanisms, some are universals, and NOne pertain to the iturgy in itself. I once was at a Novus ordo liturgy I thought was the Tridentine mass, until a few things tipped me off…

I agree for the most part. However, I think that anyone (not yourself) who suggests that the problem with the Novus Ordo is only found in liturgical abuse severly misunderstands the objections many people have. Thats why I think that the only effective criticism of the New Mass is that which deals with the Latin form alone.

Since others mention Pope St Pius X, I want to defend him a little. He was a great Pope- not only because he was a Saint, but in actual decision making and government of the Church. I have heard many times from liberals that *" he was a saint, but not a good Pope", *or “he was mediocre as a Pontiff” or *“although he was a Saint, his Papacy was a disaster” *(yes this was said!). I can only say that these people must either be modernists whom he attacked or they are ignorant of the History of the Popes and his Papacy in particular. If we only had Popes like St Pius X for this last half century, then the Church and even the world would be a very different place indeed.

To those who question his pontificate I ask: Which parts of his actions were “a disaster”? which part of his governence was less able than the other Popes? It seems to me that people just cannot take the truth he so clearly taught to the faithful under his reign, and that the ideas so many have accepted now, have been solemnly condemned by him. Padre Pio recognised him in his letters as being not only a very holy man, but also a great Pope. It reminds me of certain heretics who activley campaign against the canonisation of Pius IX, becuase they say (heretically of course) that his syllabus of errors is in error itself! What a joke!