Author Topic: More Dangerous: JP2 or B16? (Read 1015 times)

radtrad · « **on:** August 30, 2009, 09:28:52 PM »

Which one was/is more dangerous as the "visible" head of the Church? John Paul II or Benedict XVI?

JP2 was certainly extremely scandalous in his actions and words. But I think that B16 is more clear and therefore more straightforward with his apparent heresies. Plus B16 plays like a traditionalist when it is opportune, getting over on those that wish he was the savior of tradition.

I would like to know what you all think, and why.

CM · « **Reply #1 on:** August 30, 2009, 10:09:42 PM »

Well, neither is or was the head of the Church. Neither is so subtle in their heresies that a person could reasonably argue that he was orthodox in belief.

For this reason, I would state that Benedict XV (15) was far more dangerous than these two, since he covered his heretical tracks quite a bit better.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #2 on:** August 31, 2009, 01:50:47 AM »

Quote from: radtrad

Which one was/is more dangerous as the "visible" head of the Church?

Why not put "Church" in quotation marks, as the visibility of these men, and the society they govern/ed is rather certain (and practically unparalleled)?

IMO, the 'pope issue' is often a kind of red herring/distraction from the real issue: the counterfeit church in Rome (of which these men have certainly been the head).

CM · « **Reply #3 on:** September 01, 2009, 04:33:52 AM »

That is true, but the 'pope issue' is the clear cut way that a person can know that he is in a false Church.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 02, 2009, 03:11:21 AM »

Benedict XVI is the Palpatine to JPII's Darth Vader. Sorry for the pop-culture reference but that's the only way I can put it.

Ratzinger is the mastermind of the entire VII rebellion, in my opinion, making his reputation as the "restorer of tradition" all the more risible; JPII was his charismatic frontman. Well, some say he was charismatic, I didn't see it personally. Saying "I LUHVE YOU" in a Polish accent doesn't do it for me. Together Ratzinger and Wojtyla are like the Pius X/Merry del Val from hell.

If you study their encyclicals, though I'd always thought that cardinals and bishops had a hand in those, there are two distinct styles. JPII just repeats the word "man," dignity of man, glory of man, whatever.

Ratzinger, I'd say, clearly writes his own encyclicals because he speaks in the same way he writes. He uses a form of mind-control or hypnotism that tangles your mind, which is why people stay in SSPX or Novus Ordo.

I will try to describe a Ratzinger pargraph in a form of shorthand. The pattern is usually like so --

Orthodox orthodox orthodox orthodox slight heresy orthodox orthodox orthodox HUGE WHOPPING HERESY orthodox orthodox QUALIFICATION OF PREVIOUS HERESY SO NOW WE'RE NOT SURE IF IT'S HERESY ANYMORE orthodox orthodox.

He has a masterful way of mixing your head up, throwing in truth with lies and then going back and making you doubt that you read what you think you did, or that there was some other meaning behind what you thought was a heresy, and that he didn't mean it in the way it came across.

Notice how people like Caminus always tell you to "read the docuмents of VII in the light of tradition." As soon as someone says that they are out the door. That is exactly what these guys want to do, make smoke come out of your ears as you try to make lunacy seem orthodox. Eventually you don't even know what the Catholic faith is anymore.

I am not in the position to judge anyone's soul but if these VII Popes do go to hell, I can't even imagine the torments they will undergo. I can't understand how people like this aren't quaking in their boots. Beneath that placid surface of Ratzinger must be an unimaginable seething hatred because otherwise he wouldn't dare to do what he is doing. Iniquity is indeed a mystery; what is the benefit of it? There is none except the love of pain.