A Conclusion Needs No Sources - It is the Facts It is Based on that Do

A discussion long ago, with participants abbreviated back then from names and from a medium (FB, blogs, etc) no longer identifiable.

BFH

I'm not sedevacantist, but the likes of men like Bergoglio are dangerous to the health of the Catholic Church.

EF

How so? Think very hard about where your sources are for that.

BFH

My sources?

EF

Yes

One can wonder whether EF imagines BFH has "a source" for "the likes of men like Bergoglio are dangerous to the health of the Catholic Church" or whether he is asking for sources about a) Bergoglio's behaviour and b) BFH's idea of what constitutes the health of the Catholic Church.

I assume EF actually means the first guy or girl who told BFH to compare the two concepts. But that is not a source. That is an influence.

As to BFH's sources for Bergoglio's behaviour, they are the usual media.

As to BFH's sources about Catholicism, various really Traditional ones - not "Traditional" or "Traditionalist" groups today, but exponents of Tradition as recognised and partially followed even by Pope Francis fan clubs - might do as indicating various actions as being bad.

I have been asked the totally idiotic question about "sources" when it comes to what were obviously conclusions of mine.

Again : a conclusion needs good logic. It is the facts it is based on that need sources./HGL