A dogmatic SV is like the protestants who think that the reading of scripture is morally necessary for salvation.  Only in the case of the DSV, he replaces the alleged moral necessity of reading scripture with the moral necessity of declaring men to be heretics and outside of the Church.  This attitude presupposes one must sift through many, many docuмents in addition to simply adhering to the faith.  This requires one to be intellectually apt to determine heresy, this involves the capacity to find out if the alleged error is contrary to defined dogma, and the quasi-juridical authority to render a judgment.  Unless the DSV just wants other Catholics to take their word for it.  This of course would make them (whoever they are) an elite class of true Catholics dispensing authoritative judgments that all should accept without question.

Another problem with DSV is that their entire thesis presupposes the necessity of modern technology, much like the protestant notion of the moral necessity of reading scripture (whatever that means) presupposes the technology behind such an endeavor.  Thus, in adding to the content of the faith, they posit the absurd reliance on technology in order to render their judgment and thus become true catholics.  But the merciful ones will apply the moral doctrine of invincible ignorance to those unfortunates who don't have access to the internet (the eighth sacrament and the medium of divine wisdom).  But wrapped up in this benign condescension is to be found an implicit declaration that such a "truth" is morally necessary for salvation, otherwise no appeal would be made to such a moral doctrine in the first place.  The very notion of "invincible" is in direct reference ot the concept of "punishment."      

Moreover, just like the Muslim who pretends that their religion is pure and simple, but upon closer examination, one can see that it is filled with thousands of deviations, complexities, opinions and ideas, so too with the DSV with their pretended simplicity a complex array of contradictory opinions that taken to their logical and dogmatic conclusion would cast out every man who didn't adhere to one's own eccentric opinion.    

One area I want to study is whether there is apostasy or blasphemy involved in praying with members of other religions if you are not partaking in their rites, but simply praying in their place of worship.  Like Ratzinger praying at the Blue Mosque with the imam.  

Some may say Ratzinger was not actually participating in a Muslim "service" or whatever they have.  But imagine -- what if I, as a Catholic, went into a Protestant den of iniquity, kneeled down and began to pray?  Now imagine I was Pope when I did this, the kind of message it sends.

I will admit, it is hard to prove apostasy, since from what I understand, the apostasy would be to participate in an actual ceremony of another religion.  But there has to be some kind of implicit heresy there -- I just don't know enough at the moment to pin it down.  Perhaps someone else can help.

But I am not giving ground to Caminus.  That is just one odious detail among many of Ratzinger's faux-pacy.

Quote

This of course would make them (whoever they are) an elite class of true Catholics dispensing authoritative judgments that all should accept without question.

What is it about ipso facto that you don't understand?  We don't judge, we affirm, we recognize.  Anyway, let's say for the sake of argument that he's not a heretic and has a valid election -- what is he the Pope of?  That thing he rules over is not the Catholic Church.

You are SSPX.  That means you admit that Vatican II has error.  BUZZZZ!!!  A true ecuмenical Council cannot have error.  That means that what sits in Rome, because it accepts and implements this false Council, isn't the Church.  So you tell me, what is Ratzinger the Pope of?

Great points, I guess the answer is SSPX agrees he is their pope.

Quote

One area I want to study is whether there is apostasy or blasphemy involved in praying with members of other religions if you are not partaking in their rites, but simply praying in their place of worship.

I read once that if that should happen the Catholic must lead the prayers.

Catholics should never be going to non-Catholic places of worship to pray.

Catholic have always gone to non catholic places to pray, to cemeteteries, events, hospitals, homes of non-Catholic friends,  etc,  but they are to lead the prayers, or get up and leave during the religious part of the event.  

Catholics should not pray or lead prayers their place of worship.

R76 specifically was writing about praying "in their place of worship".

Have a look at his post.

I already agreed that

Quote

You are correct to say that Catholics should never, ever go to non-Catholic places of WORSHIP and participate in their false worship.

Yes, I know but I was just pointing out that's all that he had been discussing,  not about cemeteteries, events, hospitals, homes of non-Catholic friends.  :wink:

Thanks Roman Catholic!   :cheers:

 :cheers: Myrna!

The question still stands.  

When Ratzinger went to the Blue Mosque to pray, he took off his shoes.  He conceded to this false religion in terms of his dress.  

Do Muslims even have an equivalent of the Mass or do they just go to mosques and pray?  If the latter, Ratzinger WAS participating in false worship in a place of false worship.

I can feel the apostasy in my bones but at the moment I don't have enough proof.  But it doesn't matter ultimately, because this is more about VII being a false sect with an invalid Council than about individual bad Popes.

P.S. It was a "mufti" and not an imam he prayed with.  Sorry.

He is guilty of breaking the First Commandment!

When I was attending Catholic school, we were taught never to go into any other religions and I remember walking home in Chicago, had to pass a Protestant church, and I would cross the street so I wouldn't get too close to the building.

What a difference in todays students going to "Catholic" schools, the only place they are taught not to go is a Traditional Catholic church.