Author Topic: Benedict XVI dead at 95 (Read 20887 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #105 on:** December 31, 2022, 05:46:05 PM »

Quote from: Miseremini on December 31, 2022, 04:35:27 PM

So because you can't receive "thumbs down" you have to act like a jerk?

A soul has just gone to it's final judgement. Christian charity demands we pray for it not bring up all the person's past faults or make fun of him or attribute things to him that are negative.

Seminary didn't do you much good did it!

May God have mercy on him...and you too.

O, grow up and drop the sanctimonious nonsense, and actually try to comprehend what the comment actually meant. I prayed for him fervently that he would save his soul, but this doesn't change who he was or what he stood for ... hint: it wasn't for Traditional Catholicism. It's not my problem if you can't recognize that the comment was satire, a response to this absurd idea that Ratzinger was "Shocked! Shocked, I tell you." by allegations of sodomy at the Vatican, that he was clueless about all this "filth" that was "hidden" from him, that he was somehow distraught by the presence of sodomites at the Vatican. Even the two Vatican analysts (in Sean's article) rejected the idea as absurd, saying that such a thing would and should come as no surprise at all. I'm not sure what rock he had to be living under to not know that there were sodomites all over the Vatican. He was in the Vatican since 1982, for many decades, and he absolutely already knew exactly what went on there.

Ratzinger knew full well about McCarrick's crimes since about 2000, when he was still head of the "Holy Office", and did nothing about them, allowing McCarrick to continue raping seminarians with impunity, and continued doing nothing about them after he becamse Pope. It wasn't just Bergoglio who was implicated in that garbage.

In fact, just before he died, the reports had just been released in Germany implicating Ratzinger of the old reassigning of priest who were convicted in court of having been sɛҳuąƖ predators.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/pope-benedict-xvi-implicated-in-report-on-sɛҳuąƖ-abuse-in-german-diocese

No, he wasn't some victim of the gαy mafia, as the pro-Ratzinger propaganda would have it.

Everlast22 · « **Reply #106 on:** December 31, 2022, 06:08:22 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 31, 2022, 05:46:05 PM

O, grow up and drop the sanctimonious nonsense, and actually try to comprehend what the comment actually meant. I prayed for him fervently that he would save his soul, but this doesn't change who he was or what he stood for ... hint: it wasn't for Traditional Catholicism. It's not my problem if you can't recognize that the comment was satire, a response to this absurd idea that Ratzinger was "Shocked! Shocked, I tell you." by allegations of sodomy at the Vatican, that he was clueless about all this "filth" that was "hidden" from him, that he was somehow distraught by the presence of sodomites at the Vatican. Even the two Vatican analysts (in Sean's article) rejected the idea as absurd, saying that such a thing would and should come as no surprise at all. I'm not sure what rock he had to be living under to not know that there were sodomites all over the Vatican. He was in the Vatican since 1982, for many decades, and he absolutely already knew exactly what went on there.

Ratzinger knew full well about McCarrick's crimes since about 2000, when he was still head of the "Holy Office", and did nothing about them, allowing McCarrick to continue raping seminarians with impunity, and continued doing nothing about them after he becamse Pope. It wasn't just Bergoglio who was implicated in that garbage.

In fact, just before he died, the reports had just been released in Germany implicating Ratzinger of the old reassigning of priest who were convicted in court of having been sɛҳuąƖ predators.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/pope-benedict-xvi-implicated-in-report-on-sɛҳuąƖ-abuse-in-german-diocese

No, he wasn't some victim of the gαy mafia, as the pro-Ratzinger propaganda would have it.

Agreed. I think a lot Catholics fall victim to emotionalism. (especially women... sorry gals.) Confusing charity with "being nice". I have no doubt we are all praying for his soul and his conversion before his death. This is a no brainer.

God reveals the truth to those who seek it. With that, comes the earthly consequences of knowing/telling the truth. You will be persecuted. Even by those supposed to be close to you. Remember, the devil is a deceiver, and he's doing a great job. Be not deceived.

gemmarose · « **Reply #107 on:** December 31, 2022, 06:15:48 PM »

Quote from: cassini on December 31, 2022, 03:30:10 PM

OK I'll settle for that Ladislaus.

Time now to wait to see if St Malachy's last Pope is Francis.

In 1139, then-Archbishop Malachy went to Rome from Ireland to give an account of his affairs. While there, he received a strange vision about the future that included the name of every pope, 112 in all from his time, who would rule until the end of time. We are now at the second last prophecy.

As for the prophecy concerning the 111th pope, Pope Benedict, the prophecy says of him, "Gloria Olivae," which means "the glory of the olive."

St. Malachy gave an account of his visions to Pope Innocent II, but the docuмent remained unknown in the Roman archives until its discovery in 1590.

Here is what they say about JPII

Pope John Paul II is De labore Solis, meaning "of the eclipse of the sun." Karol Wojtyla, who would become Pope John Paul II, was born on May 18, 1920 during a solar eclipse.
Nonsense, De Labore Solis means THE WORK OF THE SUN. And isn't JPII the one who told the world after his 12 year papal commission on Galileo that the Church was wrong and heliocentrism was right.

"In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End."

Now Is Francis Peter the Roman., or is Francis not a real pope and there is some other real pope to come?

I don't think Francis is Peter the Roman because he's not "feeding his sheep" "feed my sheep" means spiritual food. Francis obviously isn't doing that.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #108 on:** December 31, 2022, 06:22:29 PM »

The Dimondites are out

I get that we can presume a man died as he lived, but the absolute certitude these cultists have about someone's ultimate fate is sickening.

Matthew · « **Reply #109 on:** December 31, 2022, 06:26:43 PM »

Don't get me wrong; I completely agree that speaking the truth and criticizing a Pope (especially the rotten popes since Vatican II) is legitimate.

But I still believe it's in poor taste, socially retarded, or something along those lines to engage in such criticism on *the day of his death* when we should be silent and pray.

First of all, what's the point of criticizing someone after they're dead? I think the most you should do is criticize the POSITIONS which always merited criticism. And if those positions are almost completely wrapped up with a deceased person -- then so be it.

We can criticize his heresies, Modernism (but I repeat myself), and the modern-day phenomenon of Bennyvacantism.

For example, I'm going to criticize the ridiculous "anti una cuм" position of Fr. Cekada, because it's the position/teaching I'm criticizing, not the man himself. And yes, the teaching is so novel, you almost can't help but think of the late Fr. Cekada when it's brought up. But that's not anyone's problem. We are always allowed to discuss, criticize, and debate ideas, especially when they are erroneous!

But again -- even when attacking a heresiarch, isn't there some decorum that calls for a truce (of maybe a week) when the person dies? Out of respect, kind of like a "moment of silence"?

This is one thing I agree with Gladius_Veritatis about -- he often points out that +ABL is dead. He wishes him well, but he reminds us of his limited scope in Time, in this world. And that limit has passed; his time has passed. He is of limited relevance now, to the land of the living. (Except for as an example of specific virtues, I would add).

We need to move on, to attack the NEXT living proponent of Modernism. Know what I mean? Pope Benedict XVI won't be doing/saying anything else in this world we have to worry about. He can't affect anything now, for good OR ill. He's out of the picture.

Meg · « **Reply #110 on:** December 31, 2022, 06:27:52 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 31, 2022, 05:46:05 PM

O, grow up and drop the sanctimonious nonsense, and actually try to comprehend what the comment actually meant. I prayed for him fervently that he would save his soul, but this doesn't change who he was or what he stood for ... hint: it wasn't for Traditional Catholicism. It's not my problem if you can't recognize that the comment was satire, a response to this absurd idea that Ratzinger was "Shocked! Shocked, I tell you." by allegations of sodomy at the Vatican, that he was clueless about all this "filth" that was "hidden" from him, that he was somehow distraught by the presence of sodomites at the Vatican. Even the two Vatican analysts (in Sean's article) rejected the idea as absurd, saying that such a thing would and should come as no surprise at all. I'm not sure what rock he had to be living under to not know that there were sodomites all over the Vatican. He was in the Vatican since 1982, for many decades, and he absolutely already knew exactly what went on there.

Ratzinger knew full well about McCarrick's crimes since about 2000, when he was still head of the "Holy Office", and did nothing about them, allowing McCarrick to continue raping seminarians with impunity, and continued doing nothing about them after he becamse Pope. It wasn't just Bergoglio who was implicated in that garbage.

In fact, just before he died, the reports had just been released in Germany implicating Ratzinger of the old reassigning of priest who were convicted in court of having been sɛҳuąƖ predators.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/pope-benedict-xvi-implicated-in-report-on-sɛҳuąƖ-abuse-in-german-diocese

No, he wasn't some victim of the gαy mafia, as the pro-Ratzinger propaganda would have it.

Miseremini's post has 7 upvotes so far. I think that she is saying something that needs to be said.

Charity · « **Reply #111 on:** December 31, 2022, 06:38:11 PM »

Quote from: Miseremini on December 31, 2022, 04:35:27 PM

So because you can't receive "thumbs down" you have to act like a jerk?

A soul has just gone to it's final judgement. Christian charity demands we pray for it not bring up all the person's past faults or make fun of him or attribute things to him that are negative.

Seminary didn't do you much good did it!

May God have mercy on him...and you too.

Why exactly is it that Ladislaus (and Matthew as well) cannot receive "thumbs down," only "thumbs up." What is their "official" explanation for this?

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #112 on:** December 31, 2022, 06:40:58 PM »

Quote from: Charity on December 31, 2022, 06:38:11 PM

Why exactly is it that Ladislaus (and Matthew as well) cannot receive "thumbs down," only "thumbs up." What is their "official" explanation for this?

It has something to do with post counts. It prevents new users showing up and going on down voting sprees

Simeon · « **Reply #113 on:** December 31, 2022, 07:25:23 PM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on December 31, 2022, 07:53:42 AM

Ann Barnhardt | Barnhardt

So here's what Ann thinks:

"Steel yourselves. The removal of the Restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2 before the final advent of the Antichrist, whom Antipope Bergoglio has been and will no doubt continue preparing the way for, seems to be happening. The Pope qua Pope, Peter as the Vicar of Christ on Earth and visible head of the Church on Earth, is, for now, removed."

She also makes the point that there is a radical difference between "1958" SV and her position. But what is so very interesting, is that the bennyvacantists and the SV's are now arrived at the same practical term. Is there a BV anywhere now in the world who is going to take the position that Bergoglio is pope by default? If not, then a not-too-shabby swath of Catholics are now standing side by side with folk they would otherwise avoid like the plague.

Matthew · « **Reply #114 on:** December 31, 2022, 07:32:59 PM »

Quote from: Charity on December 31, 2022, 06:38:11 PM

Why exactly is it that Ladislaus (and Matthew as well) cannot receive "thumbs down," only "thumbs up." What is their "official" explanation for this?

You know what? I'm sick of your attacks, insinuations, and attitude. You seem to have a real problem with me, but you haunt my forum on a daily basis. This, combined with your other post taking me to task (really unleashing on me with both barrels), has brought me to a decision: You're banned.

You're not worth the stress.

To answer the question though (for the benefit of those who might be reading this), each member is limited to a 13% of the target's downvotes. But if you only have 100 upvotes yourself, and I have 10,000 downvotes, then you get 13% of the DIFFERENCE between 100 and 10,000. That limits the damage new members (or even sock puppets) can do to long, established members who have been posting on the forum for years, and helped make it what it is today.

I'm not going to side with short-termers over the members who have helped build CathInfo. On the contrary! I'm going to side with the long-established members almost every time. They are going to get a lot more "leeway" during controversies and heated arguments, etc.

And here's the funny part: you would do the same. And you. And you. And YOU. Yes, I'm pointing at YOU reading this. Be honest, and admit it.

ThatBritPapist · « **Reply #115 on:** December 31, 2022, 08:04:15 PM »

Well that was a foreshadow of a Ban

Nadir · « **Reply #116 on:** December 31, 2022, 08:38:07 PM »

Quote from: Miseremini on December 31, 2022, 04:35:27 PM

So because you can't receive "thumbs down" you have to act like a jerk?

A soul has just gone to it's final judgement. Christian charity demands we pray for it not bring up all the person's past faults or make fun of him or attribute things to him that are negative.

Seminary didn't do you much good did it!

May God have mercy on him...and you too.

Amen! Well said, Miseremini.
By the way, somebody did downthumb this scandalous behaviour, but I couldn't.

dymphnaw · « **Reply #117 on:** December 31, 2022, 08:52:49 PM »

Quote from: SimpleMan on December 31, 2022, 12:41:16 PM

The day’s not over yet, at least not for about another four hours Rome time. Francis didn’t look so good on EWTN this afternoon.

True, Benedict did not die at night, but you never know.

Probably more wishful thinking on my part than anything else.

The black pope is the nickname for whoever is the head of the Jesuits.

Sneedevacantist · « **Reply #118 on:** December 31, 2022, 10:14:12 PM »

Quote from: Simeon on December 31, 2022, 07:25:23 PM

She also makes the point that there is a radical difference between "1958" SV and her position. But what is so very interesting, is that the bennyvacantists and the SV's are now arrived at the same practical term. Is there a BV anywhere now in the world who is going to take the position that Bergoglio is pope by default? If not, then a not-too-shabby swath of Catholics are now standing side by side with folk they would otherwise avoid like the plague.

So do they become the home alone flavor of SV for now since there's no clergy (that I can think of) that hold to their position? Or do they mosey on over to SV Masses since they both agree on Francis not being the Pope? Or does Francis now become a legitimate Pope to them since the previous Pope has now passed? So many possibilities!

St Giles · « **Reply #119 on:** January 01, 2023, 12:02:30 AM »

Quote from: Matthew on December 31, 2022, 07:32:59 PM

You know what? I'm sick of your attacks, insinuations, and attitude. You seem to have a real problem with me, but you haunt my forum on a daily basis. You're banned.

You're not worth the stress.

To answer the question though (for the benefit of those who might be reading this), each member is limited to a 13% of the target's downvotes. But if you only have 100 upvotes yourself, and I have 10,000 downvotes, then you get 13% of the DIFFERENCE between 100 and 10,000. That limits the damage new members (or even sock puppets) can do to long, established members who have been posting on the forum for years, and helped make it what it is today.

I'm not going to side with short-termers over the members who have helped build CathInfo. On the contrary! I'm going to side with the long-established members almost every time. They are going to get a lot more "leeway" during controversies and heated arguments, etc.

And here's the funny part: you would do the same. And you. And you. And YOU. Yes, I'm pointing at YOU reading this. Be honest, and admit it.

In my opinion, it just makes someone not want to use the vote system. Not every new member will make a significantly unjust use of the votes. And, with the seemingly limited participation on the forum in general, there will be an increasing gap between the newer more active users and the fewer long time users. Then, there's the fact that if someone posts a lot everywhere, there's a lot more chances that that member will get a lot of votes in a short period of time, and they may not all be up votes.

Do I then need to become a blabber mouth to keep up with the high post count members just so I can down vote them more if they deserve it? Then I would likely also merit many down votes for so many useless posts. Why not just limit the ability to vote period to those with at least 1000 posts and 5 years membership to perhaps keep the complaints to a minimum, and the voting rights to the most deserving? I appreciate your effort to tweak the system for the better, but obviously it isn't working out for the best, so... I don't know, maybe it would help if I mailed in my votes?

I actually rarely use the system. I think I've only ever given 1 up vote to a good post because I was in the mood to or to test if it worked, and 1 down vote which didn't work, so I'm not going to give them up votes either if my votes won't be counted fairly, which would result in an inaccurate portrayal of my average opinion of them.

Author Topic: Benedict XVI dead at 95 (Read 20887 times)

Ladislaus

Re: Benedict XVI dead at 95

Everlast22

Re: Benedict XVI dead at 95

gemmarose

Re: Benedict XVI dead at 95

DigitalLogos

Re: Benedict XVI dead at 95

Matthew

Re: Benedict XVI dead at 95

Meg

Re: Benedict XVI dead at 95

Charity

Re: Benedict XVI dead at 95

DigitalLogos

Re: Benedict XVI dead at 95

Simeon

Re: Benedict XVI dead at 95

Matthew

Re: Benedict XVI dead at 95

ThatBritPapist

Re: Benedict XVI dead at 95

Nadir

Re: Benedict XVI dead at 95

dymphnaw

Re: Benedict XVI dead at 95

Sneedevacantist

Re: Benedict XVI dead at 95

St Giles

Re: Benedict XVI dead at 95