If we accept the basic premise, I don’t see how Benedict could be the pope if he promoted Vatican II and knew it was heretical. And if he wasn’t the pope, we best not be saying that the last Pope was Pius XII, because then all the lawful successors of the apostles died a few years ago.
Since this analysis leads to an impossible conclusion, we must see that the analysis erred in one point or the other. Once we in eliminate the impossible, we must accept what is possible, no matter how improbable.
Anonymous said…
And by that I mean actually reading the documents with a hermeneutic of continuity. Is there someone claiming that it teaches something new and not in accordance with tradition? If so this man disagrees with Pope Benedict.
Very interesting, Trad Inc & Sedes apparently don't like Pope Benedict & seem to agree on a lot of stuff: Fr. Kramer: "Salza... deliberately mak[es] it appear that he is accusing... Pope Benedict of the Dolus of Formal Heresy while exonerating the Heretic Bergoglio" https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2022/07/very-interesting-trad-inc-sedes.html
Comments
Since this analysis leads to an impossible conclusion, we must see that the analysis erred in one point or the other. Once we in
eliminate the impossible, we must accept what is possible, no matter how improbable.
People do not see a difference between Francis and the other post conciliatory pope, so they condemn them all and accept them all as one unit.