[dangus]

>> ‘False’? Might it not have been necessary and appropriate for the time? <<

That would make anti-modernism modernistic. No, modernism was false, and is the source of most of the problems in modern churches, from the fudgepacker annexation of the Anglican church to the sacrilegious masses celebrated in anticipation of Vatican III.

[aposiopetic]

I think you and I are in agreement. To Reno, in the original post, the 'false solution' was the Vatican's reply to modernism. I merely questioned Reno's assertion that the solution was 'false'. Of course modernism, replete with recycled heresies, occasioned a needful response from the Bishop of Rome. The factoid that Cardinal Ratzinger (not yet B16) 'came under suspicion' is entirely unsurprising, since a premise of the Reno view is that certain theologians should not invite 'suspicion', which is to say that they should be free to teach, while remaining regarded as Catholic theologians (Kung comes to mind), things utterly inconsistent with what the Church teaches. I don't think so.