Benedict XVI to Visit Lutheran Church in Rome [WHY!!!!???]
(02-19-2010, 09:30 PM)glgas Wrote: He also said:
Matt 28:19 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: And you actually think THIS Pope is going to go there to convert Lutherans. When the heretical document on justification was nearly derailed in the late 90's he jumped in and saved it.
(02-19-2010, 07:50 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(02-19-2010, 06:38 PM)DarkKnight Wrote: At least he didn't kiss the Quran in Turkey, he just maintained a Benedictine attitude during the Imam's prayers.

Actually he prayed just like a Muslim. It was completely disgusting and a scandal. It was all over the Islamic newspapers, where the headlines screamed that the Pope prays just like a Muslim.

The Pope and the Imam took the same excact postures. The Pope prayed and followed the Imam. 
Perhaps it is because of (St Francis) the Chruch's contact with Mohammadians early on, I understood that they adopted prayer postures and the daily prayer frequency from such contact.
(02-19-2010, 06:26 PM)Baskerville Wrote: Give me reasons he's not a modernist.

You can't prove a negative.  The burden of proof lies with the accuser.
(02-19-2010, 05:21 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(02-19-2010, 05:15 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: I'm cautiously optimistic which might seem naive, and fair enough.  But condemning everything before he opens his mouth seems like the other extreme to me.

The whole point is that he is walking into a heretical church. No Pope should ever step foot into a Protestant church. There is a reason why Popes since the reformation have never done it.

Maybe he's hiding green scapulars all over the place?

Your rhetoric is tiring.
(02-20-2010, 10:32 PM)WhollyRoaminCatholic Wrote:
(02-19-2010, 06:26 PM)Baskerville Wrote: Give me reasons he's not a modernist.

You can't prove a negative.  The burden of proof lies with the accuser.

This is off-topic, but I used to believe one couldn't prove a negative, and actually that's not true.

"There are no unicorns in the universe."  Cannot be proven.
"There are no pickles in my pocket." Can be proven.

Basically, it is very difficult to prove a negative when it refers to non-existence because you have to search all of existence which is infinite, or when there are a lot of considerations.  But, you can look in my pocket and see there are no pickles.

In the case of proving that one is not a Modernist, it's impossible.  The evidence of Modernism only exists if one makes certain outward statements that meet a certain burden of proof.  Even if we hat a concrete burden of proof, which we don't, the fact that B16 hasn't made those statements doesn't prove he isn't a Modernist because he can have those beliefs inside and they haven't maniftested externally.

So, you're right that we cannot prove that B16 is not a Modernist.  But, there are two other factors: 1) We don't have the authority to judge the internal forum which is required to prove or disprove modernism, and, 2) we presuppose innocence out of justice.

Maybe more relevant is the statement  "the burden of proof lies with the accuser."  But who to prove it to?  The Pope has no authority over him except Christ.  There's no point in proving it.

So, if the Pope does something goofy, our job is to not do it.  We can say it's a bad idea, the wrong thing, etc., but ascribing Modernism seems beyond our authority.  We can probably get away with saying someone has a Modernist attitude or something, but that is much different than accusing someone of the heresy of Modernism, especially if there is no point unless we are trying to justify sedevacantism.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)