You were arguing that Benaz123 was "suspect of heresy" simply for saying he liked Orthodox theologians and Balthasaar. It is inconsistent to claim that some in the N.O. can be members of the true Church based on formal motive, while others like Benaz are "suspect of heresy" for simply believing and acting like the religion of the N.O. expects/allows.
You're really starting to just waste my time, or can't you read? I've already mansplained to you the difference between a condemened heretical/schismatic sect like the Orthodox, and an individual's private-judgment determination that the Conciliar Church is also a heretical sect. It's the same difference as when someone rejected papal infallibility before Vatican I and then after it. Secondly, do you understand the difference of being a heretic and being "suspect" of heresy. Yes, when someone promotes an Orthodox (non-)theologian as one of "his favorite", yes, that absolutely makes him suspect of heresy. There's no proof that he adheres to any heretical proposition, but that statement makes it highly suspicious that he does.
But you ignore all these things, despite my having wasted considerable time explaining it to you, but just keep harping like some mindless OCD individual on the same two or three concepts that are stuck in your brain. This has to be the fourth time now, "But ... but ... but you said he's suspect of heresy while saying that you're not necessarily a heretic if you're in the Conciliar Church." Do you understand even the English definition of the word "suspect"? In fact, even in Canon Law, had Benaz actually be caught attending Orthodox Liturgy, even there Canon Law indicates that he's merely "suspect" of heresy, since there COULD be some explanation for it (ignorance, etc. ... where maybe he thought it was the same as Eastern Rite Catholic, and I know some people who actually don't know the difference).
Poll
