Sure, so he got the language wrong.  You can't necessarily extrapolate from that and claim that Nick who may not know his traditional Catholic Faith as well as perhaps you do had him completely skip purgatory, that is if he even made it to purgatory in the first place as opposed to hell.  The fact remains you should not have used quotation marks.

I listened at your time stamp and never heard him say, "Charlie Kirk is in heaven."  As a professed Catholic he knows about purgatory.  What I heard him talking about was Kirk facing God at the time of his personal judgement.

Fuentes is a Novus Ordoite, it's a given that he believes non-Catholics can be saved. Doesn't matter if he meant Kirk is in purgatory or already enjoying the Beatific Vision..He is saying Kirk is saved either way, and it's a denial of EENS.
Fuentes is not a "trad" Catholic. He does not claim to attend the Latin Mass and has more or less mocked trads on numerous occasions

Fuentes is a Novus Ordoite, it's a given that he believes non-Catholics can be saved. Doesn't matter if he meant Kirk is in purgatory or already enjoying the Beatific Vision..He is saying Kirk is saved either way, and it's a denial of EENS.
Fuentes is not a "trad" Catholic. He does not claim to attend the Latin Mass and has more or less mocked trads on numerous occasions

He even mocked the Holy Ghost for choosing Our Lady.


https://www.bitchute.com/video/un7GkLIO2Bcb
Go to 2:41 to hear this outrage.

"What reason do we have to even know, or listen to him at all? "

He's a piece of garbage.  We should pray for him, but not listen to him. 

...He's a piece of ...  We should pray for him, but not listen to him.

Ok, let's pray for him...We will have to render account for every word we speak, idle words esp.
This guy is imagining theology as he thinks it should be...let's call him a small c catholic.
Repeating the "F" word is not even close to holiness -  stay clear from dis dude.

I think Fuentes is earnest in his faith but has yet to be trad-pilled.  He’s spoken positively about Barron, divorces the Gospel from politics but is unfamiliar with Fr Coughlin.  What sets him apart for me is his elemental understanding of the Jews - not just some subset of zionism or Israel, etc but their true character and identity as demonstrated in scripture.  For the most part his proselytizing is dead-on orthodox with the occasional NO novelties.  Not so bad given his youth

I don't listen to Nick Fuentes because Scott Roberts is a million times better. Roberts has also been truth-pilling publicly for much longer (since 2007). 

He literally said Kirky met God in the “beatific vision”

He probably meant to say "at his particular judgment", but he should've known the difference.

I would find either explanation to be plausible, that he has no clue what the beatific vision is or that he literally meant that Kirk is already in Heaven -- and neither one speaks well of him, the former entailing crass ignorance of even the basics of the Catholic faith that he claims to be devoted to, that latter a Bergoglian-Wojtylan heretical view of salvation rooted in complete religious indifferentism.

I hate to say it, but I think you, for whatever reason, are blowing this unfortunate use of language way out of proportion.  You are dead wrong in claiming that his use of the term in the context in which he used it could mean that he would entail himself in "crass ignorance of even the basics of the Catholic faith."  Where is your evidence for that?  Have you ever sat down with him and quizzed him on the basics of the Catholic faith??

If you were to ever challenge him face to face I think you would be surprised that he knows a lot more than perhaps you could ever imagine about what you refer to as "the basics of the Catholic faith."  I have heard him defend the Catholic faith at length and I was surprised at his degree of knowledge, especially considering his presumed wretched upbring in the NO.

The theological term Beatific Vision does not even come up in the Baltimore Catechism, until No. 3, the one for high school students.  Does that mean none of the young folks all the way up to high school who never heard the term, let alone knew its proper usage were entailed in "crass ignorance of even the basics of the Catholic faith?!"

I would venture to say that there may very well be all kinds of people holier than you, assuming for the sake of argument that you yourself are holy, who for whatever reasons were not taught with precision the use of the term "beatific vision"  or in today's world even heard of it, but that didn't stop them from being holy Catholics.

Very shortly after Fuentes uses that term he's talking about Kirk coming "face to face" with God.  If that's all that he said I don't think people would be jumping up and down trying to claim that implied that he was in heaven since so many Catholics, for better of for worse, simply equate that with the particular judgement.  He is on record as saying there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church so he obviously knows that dogma.  So the business of assuming that he meant Kirk who he knew was not a Catholic was in heaven is just bunk.

P.S. Fuentes is a self-described Catholic integralist who identifies with the traditionalist Catholic movement.  Those who continue to endlessly harp on this forum and other venues about him being NO don't accomplish much more than their own echo chamber harping.  It seems like you never hear them offering any evidence of what specific parish or chapel he goes to or whether he goes at all.  All we seem to hear is the blanket gratuitous assertion/mantra that he is NO.