>>808139
The death penalty question is tricky because he propagated that through the ordinary magisterium, and has repeatedly said that it is nothing to do with technology, but that there is a new understanding of morality, that it is always immoral now. Nothing to do with technology. Similiarly VII teaches:
"Buddhism teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination"
Buddhism is a false religion and does not teach a way by which people can reach supreme illumination. People will say "oh it's trying to say that it merely claims that it teaches this, but the way does not actually do this". But that's not what the text says. It says that it teaches a way men may be able to achieve supreme illumination. The way which Buddhism teaches does not let you do this.
Can I just insert it "claims"? Oh well then I can insert that everywhere else and solve a lot of problems. Who decides this? Some people say that Nostra Atatate definitely claims that Muslims worship the same God as catholics, but if I can just insert "claims" then we can say the same thing. Who determines what the interpretation is? This is another reason why I see a big issue, like we need an interpretation for the interpretation, for the interpretation, it's like an infinite series. Aren't we supposed to get clear infallible interpretations to settle it.
We have Popes who have openly blasphemed (John Paul II openly prayed for St. John Baptist to protect ISLAM, not Muslims, but ISLAM - in every language this prayer was written). The prayer is still up on the vatican website and there have been two other popes and this statement has never been condemned. (This statement is pure blasphemy). In addition, this prayer was made over a year after he kissed the Quran, after he experienced all that backlash. So who do we even listen to to find out the interpretation of these documents? Clearly we have Bishops who are preaching heresy, Popes who are openly blaspheming and so on. Cardinal Burke openly said Nostra Atatae was "non dogmatic" and said Mohammedans do not worship the same God as Catholics. He's never been condemned for this view. Does the church have the authority to even say what other religions believe? What constitutes to a Mohammedan to them? Are Ahmadiyya Muslims Muslims too? All Sunnis and Shias say they are non Muslims. Who decides what a Muslim?
I mean it seems pretty clear a lot of these statements are just pure garbage and stuff the church has never done before. We are left in utter confusion as to the interpretation of this. If nothing we all have to accept that this has caused utter confusion in the church. And we are receiving no clarification on the matter, the Popes refuse to clarify anything and insist on pushing more and more ambiguous statements. In reality, they are only ambiguous because we are trying to interpret them very charitably. Read regularly they are a lot worse. Religious liberty has been explicitly condemned and now it's a Human right? You have to do some pretty nice gymnastics to reconcile it, including adding loads of words and connotations clearly not in the documents. Is this really what is supposed to be done? The fruits of this new church is clear too, it has been nothing but evil really.
Personally I see the sedevacantist position as hard to accept, but it's not like the current position is easy to accept either. Who on earth is there to give us the actual answers to these questions (and there are soo many more). The church remains silent, the Priests don't have a clue to any of this at all. It's just people on the internet trying to figure things out.
These issues are complicated and require a lot of knowledge. It's a lot harder to refute in my opinion than Prot objections or EO objections, which is why I think people just resort to name calling instead of actually trying to address the arguments.
If I said that you could accuse the Pope of Heresy, people here would just laugh and say "lol dumb prot" or something of the like. But that just happened, with a very prominent theologian, probably one of the biggest English speakers, and then you have mainstream people like Dr. Taylor Marshall saying they overall quite like the letter etc.
We have very public and prominent people like Michael Voris and Church Militant, a group with lots of support from various Priests, publicly supporting the St. Benedicts Center. And so on - people on this board and online in general tend to make it seem like these issues are very simple and easy, just because Protestant objections are easy to refute, they also want these objections to be easy to refute. But they aren't