Raoul asserts that Pius XII was not objectively heretical in his sentence. I assert that he was. The context of the writing doesn't give me any reason to doubt it, and I don't understand why Raoul76 interprets it the way he does. He adds to and clarifies what he believes Pius XII meant by "principles of conduct".
Raoul76 has interpreted the words of Pius XII favourably, whereas I see a denial of dogma in the objective sense of the words.
Pius XII also taught baptism of desire and natural family planning and recognized Benedict XV as a Catholic pope, all things that are objectively contrary to the Faith, and since we can only judge based on the external forum, and not subjective guilt, intentions or dispositions, I am quite justified for holding that he was a heretical antipope.
Belloc, I'm puzzled to see you beating up on your straw man. I never said I was infallible. I know I'm not. That's why when I am shown to be wrong I change my position. But just because you or someone else thinks you have made a valid argument doesn't make it so.
I used to change my position every couple weeks (When I was learning the Faith), and I'm sure a bunch of you are going to try to use that against me. Go ahead, but the point is that humility and an open mind are only useful for one purpose - to take a hold of and never let go of the truth. I haven't had to do change any positions in a while, though, since I have not been presented with any compelling Catholic arguments to do so.
That being said, Caminus' post about "Heresy in History" prompted much consideration on my part, but ultimately I could see where Daly was drawing conclusions that he had no business making. For one small example, he claimed that St. Hypathius never withdrew from communion with his ordinary, who reejected Nestorius' heresy, but still considered him a bishop, but he was simply presenting as fact an opinion, for which he had no basis. In fact, St. Hypathius words strongly indicate that he did withdraw from both obedience and communion with him. Same with St. Cyprian and Pope St. Stephen. The validity of the baptism of heretics was not yet at that time proposed as revealed, yet Daly holds this doctrine out as a demonstration of why we cannot admonish and judge heretics. Flawed argumentation.
But I certainly did consider the proposition that Caminus was making about "dogmatic sedevacantism" and judging heretics, and whether or not the position I hold is valid.
Yes, Sweden, you're right about some of what you say, but you said nobody is condemned for thinking they are wrong.
If you or anybody thinks they are wrong about something, they better be putting great effort into getting it right! If a person believes himself to be wrong on a given point, and relaxes into complacency and resignation, without striving to hold the correct position, then he is justly condemned on that alone.