I'll say it again—the inordinate amount of fuss about votes is not an indicator that "trads" will be strong enough to withstand the persecutions ahead.

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.

Let me stop you there.

That's why I go by UPVOTES rather than POST COUNT.

You need to re-read some of my posts explaining the system. I never said post count. The system looks at the Actor's UPVOTE COUNT and compares it with the Target's DOWNVOTE COUNT. Nowhere does it even look at the raw post count.

Rather clever what I did there, eh? You only get upvotes for good, Catholic, quality posts. Posting a bunch of garbage won't get you any upvotes, hence no additional ability to downvote people.

Maybe we can just give it a rest for a few days or a week (I've no idea how long is appropriate) out of respect for the office of the papacy that Benedict held. There's plenty of time to ruminate over his many errors and heresies. No one here is going to canonize Benedict. At least I don't think so. I think that most here are already aware of the problems with Benedict. The mainstream Catholic and even Indult media are likely to only see the good stuff. Nothing new there. 

In today's sermon, Fr. Hewko makes interesting comments about the death of BXVI:

Bishop Joseph Pfeiffer on Ratzinger's death:

Public Service Announcement: There is a good chance "bishop" Fr. Pfeiffer's consecration was invalid. We have video evidence to that effect. Fr. Pfeiffer saying, "Oh, we fixed it up later. Trust me." isn't good enough to remove the doubts that were proven by video evidence. The "fix" needs to be as visible/solid/public as the original flawed ceremony, to remove these doubts.

Yes, knowledgeable priests have concurred that the first one, the one we have on video, is invalid ... not doubtful, but outright invalid.  But even if you don't agree, the fact that some priests have said this would at least render it highly doubtful.

But here's why I can't take +?Pfeiffer's word for the validity of "Take 2", which evidently happened the next day after people alerted them to the problems with the first attempt.  After this first attempt, +?Pfeiffer insisted that the first one was valid, and that assessment calls into question his assessment of the subsequent attempt, and we have ... to date ... only his word for it, that a second one was performed and that the second one was valid.

I apologize if I offended some here with my comments about Ratzinger.  As I watched the videos about his heresies, and also those of JP2, as I watched them fraternizing with non-Catholics, where they perhaps believed that they were being "nice" and "kind" to these non-Catholics, I came to the realization that this notion of needing to be "nithe" (as Bishop Williamson pronounces nice when he's mocking the notion) is PRECISELY the problem here, confusing emotional kindness with true charity.

Is it true charity to tell these people that their false religions are great, that they don't need to convert, and their false religions are means of salvation for them, etc.?  No greater lack of charity can be shown to these people.  Hey, let's be nice to them, make them "feel" good emotionally, but meanwhile we're contributing to their damnation by telling them they don't need to convert.  Sometimes "nithe"-ness is directly contrary to actual charity.  Ratzinger and Wojtyla were not being charitable but downright uncharitable to these souls, despite on the outside making them "feel" good about themselves.  Those who are in sin and in error need to feel BAD and uncomfortable about where they are.  But that's because they don't actually believe that they need to convert ... and this betrays their completely heretical ecclesiology.

Every time that a true Catholic pope had a chance to speak to non-Catholics, he should remind them that they cannot be saved outside the Church, and plead for them to enter the Church.  THAT is true charity.

And the same thing holds even if someone has recently passed away.  Often this niceness can be contrary to charity.  If I were around when Luther had just passed away, I'm not going to start saying nice or kind things about Luther ... lest one give the impression that, "maybe he wasn't all that bad" and that his heresies might be acceptable.

Unfortunately, it's the same thing with Ratzinger.  I had actually forgotten how bad his heresies were.  I tend to be very lenient in terms of saying we need to go with the most charitable interpretation of things, that if something could be interpreted in an orthodox sense, we should give the benefit of the doubt.  But there was only ONE heresy that the Dimonds cited that COULD conceivably be spun in a non-heretical way ... and the rest were obvious and clear cut.  And the Dimonds cited an interesting teaching from a Pope (I think it was a Boniface), who said that when there are ambiguities, Catholics are required to hold the purveyors of these ambiguities accountable as if they intended the heretical sense, and not to let them get away with it.

With Ratzinger, however, there was no ambiguity in his heresies.

I am filled with pity for Joseph Ratzinger, and I have prayed fervently for his salvation ... but this doesn't mean I'm going to start praising him now that he's dead.  Though the Bennyvacantists are in total denial, Joseph Ratzinger was no friend of Tradition, and his heresies make those of Bergoglio pale in comparison.  I had forgotten how bad they were until I re-watched that old video.  Even Bishop Tissier said that they were worse than those of Luther.  In a sense, Ratzinger did more harm to the faith, as did Wojtyla, precisely because they managed to fool a lot of people into believing that they were friends of Tradition, Wojtyla a great defender of Catholic moral theology (while doing nothing about it), and Ratzinger a friend of the Latin Mass (and speaking in Latin).  These two put on a good show, but Bergoglio is just brazen about it, and the Bennyvacantists are duped by all this into thinking that Bergoglio is a much greater evil than Ratzinger was.  No, quite the contrary, if you listen to the conservative Novus Ordites on EWTN, some of them are rock solid about 90% of Catholic doctrine ... but they immediately fall apart (into heresy) when they start talking about our "separated brethren" and wax into serious religious indifferentism.  That's because they were duped by the "holiness" of St. John Paul II the Great into accepting Wojtyla's doctrine, and there was never a greater purveyor of religious indifferentism in the history of the Church than Karol Wojtyla.  Had the religious indifferentism started with someone as brazen as Bergoglio, Catholics would simply have rejected it.  But because Wojtyla put his poison into a spoonful of sugar, they swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

And my comment about the sodomy were a satirical rejection of the assertion that Ratzinger had no clue about the sodomite mafia entrenched in the Vatican.  He was a lot of things, but he wasn't stupid ... having been at the center of the Vatican since his appointment in 1982.  There's no way that 30 years later he was shocked by these things that had been "hidden" from him.  If nothing else, he'd have heard all this stuff through the gossip mill that is undoubtedly active in the Vatican.  Even the two Vatican analysists rejected this notion, saying that there was nothing there that should have surprised him.

This idea promoted by the Bennyvacantists that the Crisis in the Church can be reduced to the pontificate of Jorge Bergoglio is the height of absurdity, that all this evil and error are merely the result of a badly worded resignation attempt by Joseph Ratzinger.  As Cardinal Kasper stated, there's no substantial difference between the theology of Bergoglio and that of Ratzinger.  In fact, Ratzinger's heresies make those of Bergoglio look tame.  Bergoglio's Pachamama episode absolutely pales in comparison to Wojtyla's activities, where infidels were literally venerating a Buddha statue that had been placed on top of an emptied tabernacle, displacing Our Lord God.

Bennyvacantists think that they hold "the key" to this Crisis ... and it's utterly absurd, and their claims have to be blown out of the water with ferocity.  Ann Barnhardt's video about the Bergoglio Antipapacy has to be one of the worst and sloppiest things I've ever seen, and yet she arrogantly asserts that it's THE solution and derides Traditional Catholics and their view on the Crisis.  Barnhardt needs to be silenced and put in her place.  If I have some time, I'll go through her video with an analysis.  It's goes from bad to worse the entire time.

Cucks with Aquinas weighing in

Hey, cucks, Shame on anyone who asserts that this Whore of Babylon is in fact the Holy Catholic Church, the bride of Christ.

I defy the cucks to watch the Dimond Brothers' video on the Heresies of Joseph Ratzinger and defend in from the standpoint of Catholic theology.  But, now, they won't look at it.  I sent the video to Barnhardt and, very politely asked her to look at it to realize that Joseph Ratzinger was part of the problem, not of the solution, but she'll never watch it, or if any of them do watch, it'll be ...