Trads Imitate Modernists?

I cannot swear that the censorship of my comments under youtube are the fact of certain channels, by now that would include "Return To Tradition" if so.

But I can mention, what is happening reminds eerily, not of what Pope St. Pius X recommended, but of what he denounced:

Modernists Must Be SILENCED | Pope St Pius X Return To Tradition | 7 Sept. 2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqK6oTby_zw 0:57 I look up Pascendi. The letters "silen" (whether -t or -ce) occur three times, and "Modernists must be silenced" is not one of those times. The third is actually about Modernists trying to silence Catholics: "When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that render him redoubtable, they try to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack," [This was taken down before I could add] There is in fact a paragraph that does speak of censorship. §§ 52 and 53 are dedicated to the topic. However, not in the mode of "conspiracy of silence" but in the mode "refuse the nihil obstat" and "withdraw a priest's permission to act as newspaper editor" in both cases obviously "if" the writer or priest-editor should be promoting Modernist content.

PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X ON THE DOCTRINES OF THE MODERNISTS
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html

So, the words of Anthony Stine are:

0:39 — 1:13

while voices of Orthodoxy are the ones who are in fact the ones getting censored we got to a place like this because prescriptions that were given by Pope St Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis as document outlining the heresy of the modernists and how to combat them were never actually implemented the full of them in Vigor they should have been and today we're going to get to that uncomfortable topic of censorship Pius X explicitly said that those who promote modernism should be censored

Well, yes. He did say in §§ 50 and 51 that bishops should condemn publications that were already in circulation, whether as books or as periodicals, with some different measures. Obviously a blog is closer to a periodical than to a book, so, the measures that could most apply are those meant for periodicals.

He also did say in §§ 52 and 53 that bishops should prevent books and periodicals from being published with for instance printing presses of the see or with priests as editors. Unless, of course, they were orthodox. He wasn't saying the reprint of the Penny Catechism couldn't happen from Episcopal printing presses. He was not saying that Father Maximilian Kolbe should have been forbidden to continue as editor of Rycerz Niepokalanej. If anything, it is more like the archdiocese of Paris was culpably neglecting its duties when permitting that, in a work of reference even, the Framework Theory should be proposed in 1920, or now allowing Sébastien Antoni, presumed Assumptionist, to continue journalism after denying the existence of Adam and Eve as individual persons rather than, on his view, just symbols.

So, while he said to prevent reading and printing, he also said by what means to do so. Traditional means of authority. Committees of vigilance are certainly pushed ... but only to help the bishops do the job of condemning books already published or not give approvals to books with such and such contents. They are not authorised to take up the weapon of the modernists, namely "conspiracy of silence" ... which is what has been done about me, it would seem./HGL