Okay: I found the article not reliable about its suggestions that BXVI was coerced. First, and most importantly, it would make BXVI a liar. He looked that committee in the faces and read his resignation in Latin (I think I still have that horrible recording), and continued to insist he was sick or whatnot, and then he proceded to quit openly a month later. Popes don't lie, especially speaking from the Chair. That's the biggest problem with all these conspiracy theories about coerced or brainwashed Popes (from Montini's "double" to this Ratzinger "coercion").

Just think about it: shouldn't a Pope GIVE HIS LIFE FOR HIS SHEEP? Sort of by definition, yes. Pope St. Peter didn't RUN from his execution; Pope Boniface VIII (not a very popular one, but pretty cool) stood up and got slapped in the face to defend HIS pontificate. (Then got killed, IIRC.) Popes wouldn't cower under pressure and throw the Chair of Peter to the demonics, and then appear in public with the new guy, and have photos made of him praying with the new guy. That's just crap. IF it were true, it would mean even worse things about BXVI: that he was willing to make a deal with the devil, and things best left unsaid.

Okay, then the article says BXVI didn't fear death, but harm to the church. But look around: the harm is done. Finito! It couldn't have been worse. (And every time I say that, something worse happens.   )

People are, sadly, digging for a technicality in the dative case that they HOPE means BXVI didn't really "quit" quit. But the problem is, BXVI quit. He left the Petrine ministry and SAID THAT many times over. To say otherwise is to make him a liar, which is not of God.

Do you see how that's lying? Even with a gun pointed to his head, a POPE would give his life for his sheep. He wouldn't let a clearly false shepherd into the fold who intended to harm God's sheep. He wouldn't have let the truly-laughable "conclave" during his pontificate (!!!). But again, well before the reports and Vatileaks etc of a year ago, he wouldn't have appointed DOLAN as a Cardinal, and a lot of other "iffy" things that put him where he is today.

That's how I read it. If anyone else has a different view, I'm sure they'll say, but I'd imagine most aren't saying so because it's preposterous — either because we know BXVI quit, or because they accept Bergoglio.

With all due respect to Fr. Kramer, he's flailing to try to make sense of it all. Many of us understand the feeling; I don't fault him for WANTING a different answer. He will come to his senses, one way or the other, soon enough. Pray for him.

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: 2Vermont

I think NovusOrdoWatch should include his other comment then (about him believing Benedict XVI is the real pope).  I don't believe they do.

Check out the Wire.  They just did.

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/

Good. I guess we can stop hearing accusations that they are intentionally withholding info to push their own agenda.

It is interesting that Fr Kramer is saying he has evidence that Benedict XVI was coerced into resigning.  I need to check out the interview mentioned in the update.

I keep telling everyone to read this or translate if you can't read Spanish. http://www.ultimostiempos.org/7-noticias/150-bxvi

The docuмent written in Latin by Benedict is intentionally deficient and invalid due to and intentional grammatical error in the Latin claims the article and then goes on to say more. You will want to read this. Or not read and take pride it not reading. Whatever.  :kick-can:

Not sure why you, as a new poster, seem to have such a chip on your shoulder.  Maybe you're not new.

Anyway, forgive me but I don't read Spanish and I don't know how to translate it?  Care to post an English translation?

Quote from: Mabel

I think something big was about to crack open and Ratzinger's resignation stopped it. I'm not saying it was blackmail but it took the wind out of his heretical sails. It was my impression that playing pope was no fun for him anymore, given the mess and scandals he inherited.

I'm not ruling out coercion, but when I first heard about the resignation my immediate gut response was not a good one (and that was before I questioned his being Pope to begin with). I always thought there was more to the story.

I'm not a Ratzinger's fan but he definitely didn't like attention and power the way Wojtyla did. He'd smile for the camera but he wasn't out there looking for a a photo-op all the time.

I think he was expecting something more intellectual and he was sadly disappointed and found the office unfulfilling. Perhaps he had the idea that he was truly going to show the beauty of his baby Vatican 2, but it turns out by the time he got into the position to show the world, the new modernists were already past that.

Personally, I think he wanted it to be the 60s, in terms of modernist intellectualism, all over again. I also think he really loved the idea of the historical role of the papacy, not in the sense of the office but in the rich history surrounding the persons who held the office and some of the externals. He did bring out some papal garments that were stunning, from time to time.

I don't think he was ready for the secrets, the evil, the scandal and the kindergarten-clap-your-hands-and-sing theology. Essentially, his hopes and agenda were unfulfilled. What was the point of him continuing in such an environment? Like going to your 50th class reunion and learning that all your friends are dead. No fun.