Modernist Inverted Accusation - A Case Study

 

a Modernist enthusiast, protestant within the walls of Catholic buildings, accusing uncompromising Catholic Priest of being a Protestant: a classic inverted accusation, not only historically ironic but intellectually dishonest.

Preamble:

Schooled by their masters, modernist enthusiasts claiming the Catholic name  often accuse uncompromising Catholics who reject the Modernist new order, hybrid, ecumenical, synodal, Pan-Reilgious impostor Church of being “Protestants”. This accusation, a classic inverted accusation, is not only historically ironic but intellectually dishonest.

In this entry, we show how this inverted accusation is historically ironic and intellectually dishonest, bringing a specific Modernist enthusiast under Catholic spotlight with reference to interpretation of passages from sacred Scripture.

Why It’s an Inversion?

A disinterested observer is able to see that uncompromising Catholics are precisely those who cling to the unchanging Catholic doctrine and Magisterium, the unaltered liturgy, and salutary disciplines.

On the other hand, Modernists, condemned by Pope St. Pius X as the "most pernicious of the adversaries of the Church":

• Denies objective truth and dogmatic immutability,
• Reduces faith to subjective religious sentiment,
• Promotes continual “updating” of doctrine and worship.
• This "updating" is geared towards achieving their agenda to transform the Catholic Church from within in line with liberal protestantism, a condemned agenda/proposition. 

And, having usurped and taken occupation of Catholic buildings, they parade their anti-Catholic agenda - doctrinal fluidity, liturgical innovation and rejection of objective ecclesiastical authority as established by Christ- as Catholic, demanding compliance from Catholics. 

Anyone with good will can easily see that accusing the very defenders of tradition of “Protestantism” is an inversion of reality—a classic projection by those whose own views not only actually embody Protestant principles but drives protestantism to it's logical end just as Pope St. Pius X warned. 

Understanding the Gaslighting Strategy

Pope Pius X taught Catholics that duplicity is the choicest strategy of the Modernists. 

Now, this tactic of inverted accusation employed by Modernists and their  enthusiasts is a form of gaslighting, a psychological maneuver to disorient and silence faithful Catholics by:

• Isolating them,
• Undermining their confidence in the tradition
• Portraying them as schismatic, protestant, divisive or arrogant. 

This pressure aims to force conformity to the Modernist ecumenical, synodal, Pan-Reilgious wonderland, where unity is based not on truth but on submission to Modernist hierarchy, doctrines, and revolution in permanence. 

Historical Parallels

It is the case that:

• The pioneers of the Protestant impiety accused faithful Catholics of being “idolaters” for adhering to the Mass and devotions.

• Now Modernist revolutionists accuse uncompromising Catholics of “Protestantism” for adhering to the very things Protestants rejected—such as the sacrificial Mass, hierarchical authority, and infallible dogma.

Fidelity taken as rebellion. How ironic! 

In making a mantra of this inverted accusation, Modernists and their enthusiasts work to deflect the real theological concerns that uncompromising Catholics raise, primarily concerning doctrinal integrity. 

Yes, by labeling Sedevacantists as “Protestants,” Modernists seek to discredit them as extremists, while obscuring the reality that they are, in fact, trying to preserve the traditional teachings of the Church as defined by past popes and ecumenical councils.

And, those who maintain una cum communion with public Modernist heretics while tagging the faithful remnant as "Protestants" commit moral complicity with error.

Modernist Enthusiast On Romans 8:38-39

A principle of Catholic exegesis - the Analogy of Faith - demands that no passage of Scripture be interpreted contrary to the whole of revealed doctrine. 

In reference to the Sacred scripture, the preface to the catechism of the Council of Trent states that:

“Let all the parts be explained with reference to the whole, and the whole with reference to the parts.”

And the Vatican council states thus:

“The rule of Catholic faith is that Holy Scripture must be interpreted according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” —Vatican I, Dei Filius, ch. 2 (1870)

The passage read thus:

For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor might, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38–39)

Based on Catholic principle, any interpretation of Romans 8:38–39 must not contradict Catholic doctrines on:

• Free will
• Mortal sin
• The necessity of perseverance
• The possibility of falling from grace

Indeed, we find the following commentaries on the passage from Catholic exegetes:

• Cornelius a Lapide, S.J. (†1637)

 “It is not said that a man cannot voluntarily separate himself from God through mortal sin. This passage affirms that no creature, no outward force can forcibly sever us from Christ.”

• St. Thomas Aquinas (†1274)

“Although nothing external can snatch the just from God’s hand, yet man retains free will, by which he can fall away"

This is confirmed: St. Paul lists external realities, not interior acts of the will. The love of God is invincible, but man's cooperation is required to remain in grace. 

Now, in defense of the Modernist ecumenical synodal Pan-Reilgious Minister whose sermon was brought under Catholic spotlight in a previous article the Modernist enthusiast in question exploded in his ecumenical, synodal Pan-Reilgious rage quoting Romans 8: 38-39 in support of the Minister's Heretical claim that "sin cannot separate you from God". 

I drew attention to what his comment amounted to, and the pitiable fellow  came affirming vehemently "Romans 8 is clear. Nothing can ever separate us from God's love". 

Now, he manifests a protestant tendency on three counts in this instance:

1. Misquoting Romans 8 in favor of the protestant false doctrine of eternal security of salvation enshrined in the formula "once saved always saved"
2. Taking that verse in isolation, having no idea about the principle of the Analogy of Faith.
3. Having no recourse to approved Catholic commentary on the passage but his own judgement of what he thinks the passage is all about.

All these he did on the altar of unscrupulous emotion set in enmity with calm reflection and discernment informed by the gift of Faith.

Now, to the extent "operation follows being", it is clear that one who acts deliberately and emphatically as would a Protestant in regards to Scripture is a Protestant. Such a person is a "Protestant being" - 

If this poor fellow had a vestige of Catholic common sense, he would have seen in my analysis of that sermon titled "sin cannot separate you from God" a thoroughly Catholic treatment of the matter involved following the Catholic principle of analogy of Faith and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers. But it is too much to expect Catholic common sense from a Protestant, be he within or outside the walls of Catholic building, is it not? 

Moral Inversion Confirmed

Like his  fellow Protestants within the walls of Catholic buildings, this fellow is enthusiastic about Modernist aggiornamento in all it's details; modernist aggiornamento, we must reiterate, which takes protestantism to it's logical end, as Pope St  Pius X warned. 

He displays blatant disrespect for uncompromising Catholic clergymen who uphold the Faith in its traditional, integral form. He denies the validity and licitness of the Holy Orders of Uncompromising Clergymen ordained according to the unchanged Rites of the Catholic Church while holding in high esteem the products of the Modernist ordinal who are merely lay-robed men since, just like the Anglican ordinal, it is absolutely null and utterly void due to defect of form and intention. 

 He quotes Pre-Vatican II sources demanding Catholic obedience, while ever unable to see that modernist aggiornamento is founded on diabolic disobedience to the same Pre-Vatican II Catholic magisterium. He insists that Catholics to-day be obedient to, and be in communion with, those Pope St. Pius X described as "the most pernicious of the adversaries of the Church" who:

...are striving, by arts, entirely new and full of subtlety, to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can, to overthrow utterly Christ's kingdom itself...

...thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers of the Church... - (Pascendi Dominici gregis, no. 2&3.)

 

He exemplifies an inversion of values which reflects a grave moral disorder - moral blindness. Sacred Scripture condemns such confusion in strong terms:

“Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: who put darkness for light, and light for darkness: who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)

This verse perfectly applies to the Modernist tendency to vilify orthodoxy and glorify heterodoxy. It is not merely a theological error—it is a moral perversion that leads souls away from the Truth. True charity demands clarity, not compromise.

Other Moral Implications 

The indignities to which uncompromising Catholics - clergy and lay; are subject from Modernists and their enthusiasts have far reaching consequences.

• Violation of Justice: the slandering, mocking, or ostracizing clergy who remain faithful to the traditional teachings and discipline of the Church is a sin against commutative justice (due to individuals) and ecclesiastical justice (due to the Church herself). This unjust criticism of faithful clergy sows division, undermines rightful authority, and discourages others from embracing doctrinal fidelity.
• Scandal (Leading Others Into Error): By publicly demeaning faithful clergymen while modernist figures are praised, the faithful are scandalized—led to think that fidelity is a vice and doctrinal laxity a virtue. This inversion of values directly opposes Christ’s warning:

 “It is impossible that scandals should not come: but woe to him through whom they come.” (Luke 17:1)

• Complicity in Heresy or Apostasy: By opposing those who guard the deposit of faith, Modernist enthusiasts thereby implicitly or explicitly support doctrinal error, sharing in the guilt of Modernist heresy or apostasy. This cooperation with evil—especially when it involves influencing others—is morally grave.

It is written: 

 “He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.” (Matt. 12:30)

• Pride and Contempt for Sacred Tradition: Just like pride is a moral cause of Modernism, as taught us by Pope St. Pius X, the attitude of disrespect from Modernist enthusiasts also is animated by intellectual pride and a contemptuous rejection of the Church's sacred Tradition, which the Church teaches must be received with veneration.

 “He therefore that despiseth these things, despiseth not man, but God, who also hath given his holy Spirit in us.” (1 Thess. 4:8)

Summing Up

The labeling of faithful Catholics as “Protestants” by Modernist enthusiasts is a deliberate inversion, intended to discredit Catholic Intransigence.

 But true Catholics reject Modernist novelty and aggiornamento precisely because they believe in the unchanging nature of the Catholic Church—One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. 

Only a protestant would roar "Romans 8 is clear, nothing can ever separate us from God's love!" in defense of the claim that "sin cannot separate you from God"! Ironically, such a one turns around and vehemently tag uncompromising Catholics as "protestants" on account of their Catholic Intransigence. Indeed an inverted accusation historically ironic and intellectually dishonest! 

The moral implications of this Modernist hostility and those of their enthusiasts are not limited to personal sin. They contribute actively to the eclipse of the true Church, the confusion of souls, and the loss of eternal salvation for many. To support, tolerate, or promote such attitudes is to share in the guilt of those who crucify Christ anew in His Mystical Body.

Unless helped by grace, no explanation could ever be sufficient to Modernist enthusiasts. While we may hope against hope that they would be granted the grace of conversion, their attitude in the present offers uncompromising Catholics an occasion to contemplate the Words of our Blessed Lord:

 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. (Matt. 5:11,12)

These things have I spoken to you that you may not be scandalized. They will put you out of the synagogues: yea, the hour cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doth a service to God. And these things will they do to you; because they have not known the Father nor me. (Jh. 16: 1-3)