Can the Proposed Defense For "united himself to each man" stand? No

Gen Z Catholic made a four part video against Sedevacantism : his overview of the history omits Pope Michael I · Do I Believe the Papacy At All? Yes. · Gen Z Catholic's Video, a Dialogue · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Papacies, Part I, What Would St. Robert Really Say? · Can the Proposed Defense For "united himself to each man" stand? No · Bishop Barron Against Rad Trads · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Papacies, Part II, Misreading Documents, Are We? · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Council · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Orders

Sometimes I really goof around trying to defend someone I ought to know was indefensible. Case in point, when I tried to find a way to bring forth my intended defense of CCC§521 to Dimond Brothers, I stumble on the refutation of my intended defense very quickly in the video:

“Saint” John Paul II’s Heresies
vaticancatholic.com | 5 Sept. 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAQ27TPAkss

1:20 Where did "John Paul II" say "unbreakable"?

I mean, "united Himself to every man" is defensible if taken as "in the same family"

I was stating that Christ would be 73 cousin 80 times removed to pretty many of us, but forgot that the first ten men on the genealogy of St. Luke are common to all, so it would be 63 cousin to the most distantly related, but given 2000 years and 25 years per generation, He would be those 63rd cousin or 62nd cousin, whichever, not directly the same generation, but c. 80 generations removed.

However, if he also said "unbreakable" that cannot be the union he spoke of, and the charge of heresy or even apostasy as by your words would still be very plausible.

A father and a daughter do not remain united past the glory of the one and the damnation of the other (St. Barbara and her pagan father).

So, if he said the union was "unbreakable" -- with each man, not just with mankind in general prior to deaths and judgements as family member -- then that possible defense for him falls.

It was also highly obfuscated (if at all true) by his accepting Evolution since at least 1992 (by which time he was not just materially, but formally schismatic, if another Pope was already elected, Pope Michael I, I just shared the Christmas message of his successor on my blog).

But obviously, if the words are "unbreakable" then he was outside the faith.

1:33 OUCH

"and with each one Christ has united himself for ever through this mystery" ...

The attempted defense falls to the ground.

Also, the mystery by which "united with each man" would be (temporarily only for the ones damned) correct is more directly Christ becoming a "kinsman" than the "redeemer" of His kinsmen.

Even C.S.Lewis could meditate on the fact of damnation and know very well that the solidarity of kin ceases when one is damned.

The Great Divorce (title answering a blasphemous title by a Romantic) shows a mother refusing to join her already dead and blessed son, if she is not able to continue to be overprotective. The basic scenario is of course erroneous, based on a total misunderstanding of some early CF using the word "refrigerium" but the lesson is still apt.

Obviously, the video is much longer, but I leave it here to show how quickly one intended defense of "John Paul II" falls to the ground.

Never mind the "saint" part .../HGL