It is difficult to prove pertinacity, to the level of moral certitude, against John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Pertinacity is essential for formal heresy. Benedict XVI, for example, adopted a hermeneutic of continuity, showing that he did not want to break from Tradition.
Right, you can make an assessment of the internal forum to determine that Bergoglio was pertinacious but Ratzinger was not. It's ludicrous. If anything, Bergoglio could be excuse of ignorance because he really is low IQ, whereas Ratzinger was a brilliant man and knew exactly what he was doing. That "hermeneutic of continuity" was just a smokescreen for and expression of his Hegelian dialectic where he was looking for "hybrids".
If you were completely biased, you'd objectively look at Ratzinger's work and realize that he was a FAR WORSE heretic than Bergoglio. Even Bishop Tissier did a study of Ratzinger's heresy and declared him a "worse heretic than Luther", and rightly so.
It's pathetic. You just decide you don't like Jorge and construct your entire nonsensical BS based on your emotions.
Topic: "It is possible that we will be obliged to believe that this pope is not pope" (Read 11913 times)