Well I'm trying! ☺But what excuse do you have for the current "popes" actions.
Just curious!
I don't have much time, but I'll offer a few thoughts.
I would say first of all that to think or conjure up in one's imagination that they are secret conspirators intentionally trying to destroy the Church will disqualify one from any conversation at all. If this is true, all bets are off.
But the one thing necessary to form rational judgments is the criterion of evidence. The raving imagination of Raoul undermines his reasoning ability. Short of solid evidence, it would be strictly irrational to form a judgment, no matter how much our emotions tell us to do so.
Thus you have to take words at face value. You must attempt to grasp the true nature of the problem according to stated intentions.
So for instance, with regard to the Pope entering a ѕуηαgσgυє or Mosque, you have to look at their stated motives. They view themselves as more of a diplomat attempting to usher in an era of worldly peace. They divorce their role as Vicar of Christ, as Teacher of all men, from their new worldly role as the builder of human civilization.
That is why they incessantly claim that they do not intend to promote religious indifferentism. But in fact they do because they are deluded by a false mission, by the fact that they cannot supplant their identity as the Vicar of Christ.
So they enter the ѕуηαgσgυєs not to imply all religions are equally effacacious, but because they see these false religions in purely humanistic terms of building a more "humane" society.
There are many errors involved with horrific effects, among which is in fact indifferentism and blasphemy, but you would be hard pressed to identify a particular dogma they willfully reject. In fact, they do not claim to reject any defined dogma at all.
Is there modernism involved in this question? Yes, there is. But you also have to keep in mind that not all aspects of modernism were heretical in essence. There were many elements that were perverse socially, philosophically and theologically.
Thus the matter is extraordinarily complex. You also have to keep in mind that heresy involves a direct, personal denial of defined dogma.
Thus if you here someone say, "He can't say that or do that, no Catholic could say or do that, he must be a heretic" you have to keep in mind that there can be several distinct causes to these actions and words and that short of an explicit direct denial, the observation amounts to conjecture. It
may be true that he says this because he is an heretic, but not
necessarily so.
And thus the law of presumption holds good, no matter how you feel about them.
Remember this, the unstated premise among the sedevacantist who argues from an inference is that only heresy can cause this kind of damage. This is not true. There are many kinds of causes that can result in this kind of damage and they do not necessarily involve heresy.
Topic: Sedevacantism: Prove It (Read 10947 times)