Some corrections against the man speaking, and one at least aganst the man he is speaking about, whom I do not consider to be a true pope of the Catholic Church or even of the see of Rome.
6:11 I may not be sure that Bergoglio is truly Pope, I may even doubt it. I may consider him a very bad fraud (count BERGOGLIO in ASCII CODE, A=65 - Z=90, a=97 - z=122).
However, your saying "there is no mention Peter ever went to Rome" I suppose you mean - in the Bible.
Two things. There is no mention he died in Rome, but there is no mention he died anywhere else either. Shall we on your logic conclude he hasn't died yet?
Or that it was immaterial to the Church where he died? Even St Lazarus the four days dead (the brother of St Mary and St Martha of Bethany) we have two rival claims on where he died, namely Marseille in what is now France, Larnaka on the island which was already then Cyprus. We have an Italian city - Bergamo, I think - claiming its bishops descend from St Barnabas, codisciple with St Paul when they were still disciples of Gamaliel. We have Ephesus claiming St John died as its bishop (if dying is the right word for what happened!). We have St Irenaeus of Lyons claiming to be direct disciple of St Polycarp of Smyrna who was direct disciple of St John. And where St Peter died is supposed to have been immaterial? No, rather I believe St Peter and St Paul died outside Rome the same day, one outside the city wall where we have San Paolo fuori le mura, one on Vatican hill where we have Saint Peter's Basilic.
But the other thing is that we do have Biblical evidence St Peter wrote to those who had received St Paul's Epistle to the Romans - and knew them. He knew some of them twisted parts into anomianism, like later Luther.
[I meant antinomianism, and I am not saying Luther stayed exactly in that position, but he had provoked it in others he distanced himself from.]
7:54 protecting creation and simply not destroying it are two things.
"Who destroyeth the earth, him shall God destroy" says we must not destroy for instance environment or peace or liberty of families or lives of innocent. Pretty few persons are in a position to take such fatal decisions.
But positively protecting creation is God's business.
8:42 all good are for the good of all mankind, but that does not mean one can take from one man unless another man starves because of him.
See Leo XIII Rerum Novarum.
It clearly says that people working on land not their own are not suffering an injustice as long as it does not stop them from living of the land they work.
Before getting on to how he means us to protect you said he did not define who Herods are ... well, if he mentioned St Joseph I think he may have been comparing them to Herod the Great - the Great killer of Infants. Does that strike any bell? Noone around killing infants in our days? Unborn such too, who have not had a chance to get baptised?
Jesus does not need to be protected - any longer. But He needed it in the Flight to Egypt. Obviously one may charitably assume the man meant doing it to Jesus again in the persons who receive what we will have been doing to Himself according to the parable of the sheep and the goats. What bothers me is his taking a stance as if the Bishop of Rome was everyone's protector. But he might just have meant that as protecting through speech, though Pius XII acted as protector of Jews rather than by speaking by hiding them.
Sure, He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and yet we are in a position to do good to him. "Whatever ye have done for one of the least of my brethren" ...
11:47 "he called up, in prayer, dead saints".
If they are saints they are alive. "Whoever believeth in me, he shall live even if he die" Our Lord told St Mary Magdalene (or some would insist that St Mary of Bethany was not St Mary Magdalene, I think they are wrong, as Pope St Gregory the I:st said in his Dialogues).
So, for one thing they are not dead. They are not in Sheol but in Heaven. And for another thing, he did not summon them to appear and tell him things he wanted to ask them in person, he asked for their intercession. Which is not illicit in Exodus. Or Deuteronomy.
"We are to pray to God and to God alone" - Not Scriptural. We are to adore God alone, and we do not adore St Joseph, Sts Peter and Paul (both of whom died as martyrs in Rome), or Sts Francis and Dominic of Guzmán or even the Blessed Virgin Mary. Praising them and asking for their intercession does not equal adoring them.
"... as if they were divine and could hear prayers"
They are not the ones granting prayers by [doing things with any own] divine power. Interceding and granting a prayer are two different things. However, the Blessed Virgin Mary prayed for the first Miracle of Christ and for the conversion of the Thief and from then on at least for everyone who is saved. But she is not a Divine person and we do not think she is. There are three of them, Father and Son and Holy Ghost.
"That someone who purports to be a Christian leader could pray to the dead" ....
What were the Pentecostals who gave him a blessing doing? Were they thinking he was not at all confessing Catholicism in any sense, because he was being ecumenical and calling them Christians? I would rather consider them as God Fearing Pagans and say he was wrong to ask for their blessing.
But a blessing is also an intercession.
Cooperating with Muslims for the common good of humanity ... now making an occasion [of such a thing] on a local level may be very right. But making it a program on a global level seems to imply one take no measures for the common good without consulting them who are wrong - which is wrong.
14:25 it is true that denying the Father and the Son, they have neither, they do not have God. Excepting individual exceptions.
The Muslim community as a whole has sufficient past occasions to realise Mohammed was a false prophet and has not taken them. Individual Muslims may however before God have their excuses for not realising this, their excuses for believing the Quran holy. Obviously Karol Wojtyla for one thing had no similar excuse himself, and for another thing had no business at all providing any individual Muslims with more excuses to not become Christian. Kissing the Quran was a sin. It was perhaps even the exterior sign of an apostasy. I am no mor really into the "perhaps" part.
It is part of an idea we must all together protect all together. Collective, solidarity based responsibility. I believe this is wrong. One person may on one occasion need the protection of one other person. Not everyone by everyone. Or even the responsibility of one other person - but not everyone all the time that of everyone else. That is where I find his first speach at fault.
Before Kain asked "am I my brother's keeper" after killing whom he did not keep, I personally guess at the very least that he had previously been Abel's keeper in a wrong way and been told off by Adam or Eve that his brother was grown and did not need a nanny.
If you look at how the Pharisees (darlings of Begoglio, according to pictorial evidence) did with Jesus, they had decided to "destroy" Him before deciding to "kill" him. I think the "destroy" part was a kind of very "responsable" overdoing of the protection to someone who had just taken his first step into the world by a second miracle which involved healing on the Sabbath. They very probably wanted to correct Him "for his own good", as they would say.
[Not watching the rest of the video after about 15:00 - 15:30 minutes. At least for now.]
* Ver. 11. Charmer of serpents, Psalm lvii. 6. One who makes a compact with the devil. --- Spirits. Python was the name of the serpent, which Apollo slew. It might be derived from the Hebrew patah, "to seduce," because a serpent seduced Eve, and dealers with the devil generally deceive those who consult them. Septuagint, "a belly talker," as these impostors muttered some sounds, intimating that a spirit gave answers from their belly, See Isaias xxix. 4. --- Tellers. Hebrew, "wise men." (Haydock) --- Those who promise great knowledge from the secrets of the caballa, or magic. --- Dead. Necromancy was already very common. Thus the witch of Endor made the ghost of Samuel appear to Saul, 1 Kings xxviii. 7.** The Rabbins say that the person took a bone, or the skull of the dead, when he intended to enquire into futurity. (Drusius)
From Haydock comment on Deuteronomy 18
** The Witch of Endor had no power over the real ghost of Samuel. However, God granted an exceptional real appearance of the latter, which frightened the witch wh was more accustomed to demons./HGL