In light of LoT's remedial attack on Pius XII, I was wondering if he( or anyone else) would like to comment on the modernism of this Pope(anti-pope?) whose very election may not even be legal.  :confused1:

I would prefer not to call it an attack but trying to get the record straight among objective posters.  I certainly believe the election of Benedict XV was legal.  I don't know if he was a modernist or was influenced by them at all.  I know he was the first to read the 3rd secret and did not consecrate Russia the way our Lady asked.  He did not write many encyclicals, which could be considered refreshing after dealing with JP2.  I read all his stuff and it wasted a large portion of my life.

I'm sure this thread is not motivated by the wish to have everyone to gang up on me.

I'm also sure that most who read understand that not all the popes in history were as great as Pius X and that they can be imprudent and that they do not always do the best thing at the best time.

But let me ask the question and see.  I have been surprised by responses before.

1.  Were all the popes as great as Pius X was?

2.  Was Pius XII as great as Pius X was?

Remember noone was canonized between Pius V and Pius X.  Now they want to "canonize" JP 2 and Paul 6 no less!!!  That means they were better than all the Popes between Pius V and Pius X.

Hopefully no one will call me any names or hurt my feelings and make me cry to mamma over this one.  

I repeat the words of Patrick Henry Omlor when trying to get to the bottom if this issue:

     That the arguments presented herein are beyond question or challenge I do not claim.  Assuredly they will not be the "last word" on the subject.

     "You must not so cling to what we have said," St. Anselm advised his disciple, "as to abide by it obstinately when others with more weighty arguments succeed in overthrowing ours and establishing opinions against them."  When more weighty arguments (either for or against mine) are advanced, I will welcome them.  And I will take as my own these words of the same great St. Anselm: "If there is anything that calls for correction I do not refuse the correction."

     What I have striven for is clarity.  Each paragraph of this monograph is numbered uniquely, so that all who wish to question or rebut any particular point, or many points, may with ease refer to what I have written.  Not only will this aid my sincere opponents in citing chapter and verse against me, but it will also point up the insincerity of all blanket criticisms that avoid citing specifics.


Patrick Henry Omlor
Redwood City, California
March 7, 1968
Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas

It is becoming increasingly evident that LoT's ability to evaluate history is somewhat specious. The topic of this post is Benedict XV(15?) not 16.

But for the record, is LoT saying that the election of the anti-pope Benedict 16 is legal?

The comment of LoT above says that he 'could be refreshing AFTER dealing with JP2'. Unless I am mistaken, Benedict XV(15?) was pope about 70 yrs b4 JP2. It shouldn't be to hard to comprende why I assuming that U are confusing the 2 Benedicts.

Below is the quote in question:

I certainly believe the election of Benedict XV was legal.  I don't know if he was a modernist or was influenced by them at all.  I know he was the first to read the 3rd secret and did not consecrate Russia the way our Lady asked.  He did not write many encyclicals, which could be considered refreshing after dealing with JP2.

Throughout I speak of Benedict XV.

I don't know of any "Benedict 16"  Only a Father Ratzinger that goes by that alias.

Let's leave the arch-heretic, Father Ratzinger out of this if possible.  

I think U should read your post again-- U are clearly referring to a Benedict that come AFTER( your own words posted immediately above) JP2.

Unless I am mistaken, Ratzinger is the only person claiming to be a Benedict AFTER JP2

Bye.

Quote from: roscoe

In light of LoT's remedial attack on Pius XII, I was wondering if he( or anyone else) would like to comment on the modernism of this Pope(anti-pope?) whose very election may not even be legal.  :confused1:

I would prefer not to call it an attack but trying to get the record straight among objective posters.  I certainly believe the election of Benedict XV was legal.  I don't know if he was a modernist or was influenced by them at all.  I know he was the first to read the 3rd secret and did not consecrate Russia the way our Lady asked.

Which pope are u referring to that 'did not consecrate Russia the way our lady asked'?

If it is Pius XII, this is again incorrect because he interpreted Fatima as requiring  the consecration of THE WHOLE WORLD. Unless I am mistaken, Russia is part of the world & is there fore included in the consecration.

Ciao

Below is the quote in question:

Quote

I certainly believe the election of Benedict XV was legal.  I don't know if he was a modernist or was influenced by them at all.  I know he was the first to read the 3rd secret and did not consecrate Russia the way our Lady asked. He did not write many encyclicals, which could be considered refreshing after dealing with JP2.

Throughout I speak of Benedict XV.

I don't know of any "Benedict 16"  Only a Father Ratzinger that goes by that alias.

Let's leave the arch-heretic, Father Ratzinger out of this if possible.  

You're wrong about Benedict XV: reading the Third Secret, etc.  He did no such thing.

Neither did Pius XI.  Neither Pius XI nor Benedict XV ever saw the Third Secret of
Fatima.  So they could not have made any decision about it: they were ignorant of
it, just as you and I are, only worse, because we have clues to go by from others
who HAVE read it, and have made various relevant comments.

It's easy to pass erroneous judgment on popes when you get your facts mixed up.