Benedict XVI: Was He A Real Pope?
vaticancatholic.com | 2023 13 Jan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULpSd6kdgJ0
4:03 Nostra Aetate textually does not say that. Here is an actual quote:
Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.
The first part clearly affirms that the Church has taken the place of OT Zion.
The second part can be taken diversely, only one way being the interpretation of Kasper. Another one could be that the Jews alive today are receiving a new "time of visitation".
This obviously does not make Walter Kasper or Joseph Ratzinger orthodox. Just means that the texts of Vatican II do not give full support for their heresy ot apostasy.
5:33 Even if some Orthodox were in the Church, wasn't it Kirill who's hand he was shown holding?
The apostate spiritual father of Putin.
7:18 Could he have those attacks on Scripture from Kirill?
First of all, lot's of Kirill's brothers in the Modernist Orthodox communion will pretend that one should take Genesis 1 to 11 as sth like the Iliad and the Odyssey.
This is not the worst part, but they fail to see that Iliad, Odyssey and Aeneid are not fiction like Lord of the Rings, but more like sometimes erroneous but globally still factual history (obviously told from an erroneous theological perspective).
Do you realise how much of the last five years evil people have different persons each time made a point of coming back to me and asking if I really belive the Homeric poems, and (with less certainty, but still some probability, apart from the anachronism of Dido in Aeneas time) to be historic, and kind of suggest that this is equivalent to the delusion of someone taking the fall of Barad Dûr as historic fact?
Or how much time and effort they have taken to suggest that some of my statements on Tolkien (he intended Middle-Earth as the "main continent" of our Earth in an imaginary past, he based parts of his fiction on linguistic, palaeontological, geological and so on reconstruction, he was right to take the Atlantis story as a fact, and so on) as an indication I believe Lord of the Rings to be factual, when on the contrary, it means I do not set much value on reconstructions that take liberties with Biblical history contradicting its actual chronology?
11:35 He cooperated with the evil of psychiatry, and approved of it.
When he approved of it, in 2006, I gave up on papacy and turned to the Orthodox for a while.
I came back when they attacked his words about Africa and how to combat AIDS from the wrong angle (the real problem is he was too permissive), but left him again (and eventually FSSPX too) over his cooperation with psychiatry in the Susana Maiolo case.
Imagine Reagan had publically both endorsed Brezhnev's efforts to Communistify Afghanistan and sent a troop to help to fight the Taliban. It would have been treason.
It can be noted, when I came back, it was at first to TLM in St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, FSSPX, up to when and after rejecting Ratzinger the second time.
11:39 "he acted more traditional"
Sure. And Reagan acted manly, but unlike Trump he did nothing to overturn Roe v Wade, as far as I am aware.
Vivant Alito, Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett!
13:06 The eighth king, one of the seven ... [Bergoglio]
The Heresies of Benedict XVI
vaticancatholic.com | 2014 5 August
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkPiaS1z6Vs
What would you make of the things that happened at his funeral?
1:01:35 "and that the resurrection of the body will not occur"
I severed communion with him for less than that.
A certain Susana Maiolo had disrupted the "Mass" celebrated by him and concelebrated by Etchegarray.
That under civil law she should be punished for the disruption is not totally incomprehensible, but punishment is one thing, she was pushed into at least a week of psychiatry, and while Georg Gänsewein was sent to her, they obviously didn't try to get her out of that horrid place.
I was willing to understand her gesture as exasperation with priests cooperating in the psychiatric mistreatment of her, and was shocked when her "message" (according to GG) was a repeat of Sarah Silverman's idiocies.
But that was only a very habitual cooperation in evil, what you mentioned is, if true, apostasy.
Where in the video do you cover that?
[I had jumped to the end of the video — here comes one image from the video where the Dimond Brothers adress it, and also one link where someone else clearly says that Ratzinger rejected the traditional and Thomistic view of the Resurrection of the Body. Then another video follows.]
Ratzinger on the Resurrection of the Body
William F. Vallicella | Apr 17, 2022
https://williamfvallicella.substack.com/p/ratzinger-on-the-resurrection-of
Bishop Sanborn And John Salza Are Totally Wrong On Manifest Heresy - New Evidence From Pope Martin V
vaticancatholic.com | 2023, 20 February
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOKPjzh3ZPI
7:39 Cassiciacum thesis.
a) we cannot judge Bergoglio as believing a heresy when saying "God is not a Demiurge with an omnipotent magic wand" (the moment when I ceased to give him even the benefit of the doubt, I had never formally submitted to him)
b) but we can judge him to be an evil man, obviously believing the totality of Catholic dogma on creation, just out of pure, even subjective, illwill pretending to deny the Creation account so as to mislead his flock.
Not very coherent.
10:48 What Bishop Sanborn is saying is not very different from what the then SSPX priest said in the Lenten sermon series "Wie müssen wir zum Pabst stehen" (Paul Natterer, I'm not sure of his current status, he doesn't seem to be on the registers of the SSPX priories in the German province).
The true part is, when a priest, curate or dean or whatever or bishop, whether suffragan or arch or whatever is tried and found guilty of heresy under the 1917 canon law, he loses office automatically on being found guilty, but whatever deeds he did up to the sentence or when the process summoned him to give up the normal use of his office, is presumed as validly done up to the point when he's judged.
Paul Natterer explained this as flowing from the "supplet ecclesia" principle.
As far as I have gathered since, it cannot apply to the Pope, since "supplet ecclesia" in terms of jurisdiction means "supplet superior" and the Pope has no superior.
14:52 For Pope Michael I there were, presumably for Pope Michael II there are real Catholic souls who are misplaced in the Vatican II sect.
Doesn't make all of them Catholics.
But a layman is less suspect of personal responsibility for the non-Catholic stuff.
[19:03] The man you considered a heretic was ordained well before Vatican II:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valent%C3%ADn_Zubizarreta_y_Unamunsaga
No comments:
Post a Comment