Yes, I find it illuminating to see how some are willing to assail certain persons as modernist heretics based on nothing more than traditionalist pamphlets, while having no real knowledge of their thought, life, etc. We see this with Congar, St. Escriva, and many others. Can you imagine St. Athanasius admitting that he attacked Arius without reading the Thalia or his other works? Of course not.
So, naturally I assumed that you have a full knowledge of Fr. Martin on Congar and disagree with him.
That is certainly confused logic. I was referring to the quote made from Martin claiming (without substantiation) that Congar was unorthodox. That was hardly proof and that was my point.
......"You seem to enjoy quizzing people on how much they know of someone's works"
Yes, I find it illuminating to see how some are willing to assail certain persons as modernist heretics based on nothing more than traditionalist pamphlets, while having no real knowledge of their thought, life, etc.
Non sequitur. Since you know virtually nothing of the traditionalist pamphlets, you don't know whether or not they accurately analyze certain persons.
For example: Do you agree or disagree with Fr. Martin's analysis of Teilhard de Chardin in the Jesuits? Is he accurately explaining Chardin's position and is his debunking a cohesive argument?
You see I find it illuminating that you are willing to assail someone's sources based on little or no knowledge of what those traditionalists "pamphlets" actually say. And I would hardly call Guimarreas' "Eli Eli Lama Sabacthani" series a "pamphlet"
We see this with Congar, St. Escriva, and many others. Can you imagine St. Athanasius admitting that he attacked Arius without reading the Thalia or his other works? Of course not.
Obviously St. Athanasius was not on FR. And I believe Bishop Williamson is probably the biggest victim of this cultural mileu that you refer to. These are discussions with people who are not bishops (or Canon Lawyers) hashing through the sea of information and disinformation in order to find their way. I'm sure there were many lay people during the Arian crisis who through the Sensus Catholicus knew that Arius or Nestorius were not feeding them the good dope. And I'm sure they did their best to express the truth in their various watering holes. FR is a watering hole. Not the Oxford debate club.
..."So, naturally I assumed that you have a full knowledge of Fr. Martin on Congar and disagree with him."
That is certainly confused logic. I was referring to the quote made from Martin claiming (without substantiation) that Congar was unorthodox. That was hardly proof and that was my point.
So, if that is confused logic, is it confused logic to assume (without substantiation) that traditionalist writings are incapable of expressing the thoughts of certain persons accurately?
It's interesting how illuminating some things are. The light sometimes reveals things unexpected.