Benedict Is No Friend Of Ours

Drunk on V II: Pope Emeritus

Pope Emeritus, who for one who wanted to be forgotten by the world talks an awful lot, is on record for saying that The Lord wins in the end.

No shit, Sherlock!

It surprises me that some have taken this fairly obvious point as a critic to the new Cardinals Francis has appointed.

Benedict was receiving those very Cardinals, something which he was under no obligation to do. He entertained himself with them in a very cordial manner. There is nothing in the linked article that shows he is in any way dissatisfied with them.

We should stop seeing in Benedict a sort of princess held in the tower by an evil wizard, or a man suffering in silence the papacy of Francis. The man is not silent at all, and when he speaks of Francis he invariably supports him, as the two interviews released in the last months, and about which I have reported, abundantly show.

The man is a total and complete disappointment. He is through and through a Vatican II man with merely a thin varnish of I do not say “conservatism” (I do not think he even deserves the adjective after supporting Francis), but merely prudence or timidity. His first and last allegiance go to V II: he promoted a vaguely more conservative version of it, but it is clear to him V II is the priority and Benedict and Francis only two slightly different flavours of it.

Forget Benedict as our ally.

Think of him as the well-spoken, multi-lingual useful idiot of the heretics and perverts in the Vatican.

M

 

 

Advertisements

Posted on June 30, 2017, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 7 Comments.

  1. Excellent! ——–like 90%of all your articles. May God give you the Grace to continue

  2. What about this report from Giuseppe Nardi from a few months ago, though?

    Bombshell from Vatican: Benedict and Francis “in complete disagreement”, “never talk to one another”
    http://pewsitter.com/view_news_id_273108.php

  3. Perhaps Benedict is viewed as a “disappointment” because people viewed his career through their own ideological spectacles? A lot of people view John Paul II as a staunch theological conservative when he was anything but (his arbitrary revisionism of Catholic teaching on capital punishment proves that). In John Paul II’s case, I believe his uncompromising opposition to Communism (and its bastard stepchild, Liberation Theology) — especially compared to many church figures — motivated political conservatives to view him according to their own ideological categories, complete with all the implied assumptions they carry. I think that was especially true here in the United States.

  4. He knew the entire Third Secret the entire time of his papacy, having read it long ago. He has had plenty of time to think about it. And he allows the suffering in the world to continue when he has the power to consecrate Russia – the poor seat of evil ideology – to the Immaculate Heart.

    He still calls himself Pope. Why? Only one of those ‘Popes’ has the power to define dogma. Which one? And Francis is bent on destroying dogma!

    We’ve been had!

%d bloggers like this: