[RobbyS]

If you think that Benedict is a “progressive,” then you and I do not share the same meaning of the term. To me the progressive is someone for whom politics is the end and religion is the means, someone like Father Pfleger, or Mrs. Steinfels, the editor of Commonweal.

[Leoni]

It appears that you view the word progressivist as synonymous with progressive or liberal, as used normally in American English. For Catholics however, a progressivist is a partisan of Progressivism which is a bolder heresy than Modernism.

St. Pius X qualified Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies. To call someone a Modernist is to qualify him as a pernicious heretic.

Progressivism is even worse than Modernism, since it took Modernism to further consequences than were possible at the beginning of the 20th century.

I'm not using the common language, which qualify the liberal or the leftist as progressive. I use Progressivism, progressivist to refer to a particular school of thought inside the Catholic Church, which follows the same errors of Modernism surpassing this heresy in its broader and deeper consequences.

Benedict XVI was a progressivist periti at Vatican II along with Karl Rahner. He has never to this day written anything that hints of his having erred in his “past” beliefs.

There are worse progressivists than Benedict XVI, and scarcely any Catholic clergy that are not infected by progressivism, therefore, B16 might “appear” to be orthodox,, compared to say the likes of Card. Mahoney of LA.

A Catholic has to compare popes with all the past popes, and clergy with all the past clergy. B16 compared to Pius IX, Leo XII, Pius X, is what he truly is, a progressivist, just like Paul VI, and JPII.