My say about Ryland's take on Soloviev is on my blog, dated this past Sunday (23rd November).
The link to the blog is my signature below.
I'm not quite sure exactly what I'm supposed to be looking for; the main thing I found was a link to an SSPX article
in which I see major problems.
Two problems, to be precise.
FIrst of all, there's the classic "-ism" problem. Names and taxonomy are not the same thing. Anyone who does any vaguely serious botany (even gardening) come across this immediately: things with the same name aren't necessarily related. Christianity itself suffers from this. And "feminism" suffers from it worse than almost anything. Ordinarily from the perspective of taxonomy, one would go for the intersection of all the different sets of characteristics. So what is the intersection between Mary Daly and Feminists For Life
? Or for that matter, between FFL and Planned Parenthood?? If one takes everyone's word as a self-identified feminist, then one must conclude that feminism is such a vague concept as to almost defy any definition at all (besides having something to do with the word "female"). The same problem bests the author of the article in some of his other attacks. "Inclusive language" has at least two distinct meanings, depending upon whom you ask.
The other problem is the "fruitcake" problem. Now, Mary Daly is a fruitcake. This is a woman who has quotes from animals in Gyn/Ecology
-- literal quotes, in quotation marks. (See Footnote 47 to Chapter 10 if you don't believe me.) The Wickedary
is, in its way, crazier. But every institution has its loons, and Orthodoxy is certainly no exception. And SSPX is definitely
no exception. So if we start defining every group and -ism in terms of its loopiest members, we're all in trouble.
(As an aside, it's clear that Dr. Mago doesn't understand Peter Kreeft at all. Or chooses not to.)
That said, one has to wonder at anyone behind a "Sophianism" should be taken as the mouthpiece of any