The next question, when did his anti-papacy occur?
Was he validly elected Pope and excommunicated himself with heresy or was he ever validly elected pope?
Looking at the sinful ecclesiastics he surrounded himself with the packing of the College of Cardinals, the destruction of various faithful and prominent institutes made me want to have his ‘pontificate’ to be completely nullified. But wanting something does not in and of itself make it so.
I noticed that Benedict continued acting like a Pope made me suspect that something was not right. Two men in white is not right.
Ratzinger’s thought has been a particular interest of mine. What made him unique was that he was not a Thomasist but yet orthodox, at least in his later works, which is what I mainly studied.
I do not speak German and it never really occurred to me to look at his earlier thinking. He parted ways with Rahner, his mentor, and that was good enough for me. ‘We all make mistakes in our youth and move on’ was my thinking. However, Ratzinger’s lack of use of Thomas Aquinas, which I noticed, and his preference for German theologians, who I had developed a guarded position weighed negatively on my opinion of him.
I suspected Benedict was still the Pope and that Bergoglio was an Anti-Pope but I did not have enough facts for a public declaration of moral certitude. Call it mother’s intuition or the movement of the Holy Spirit, but I knew in my soul regardless of what Benedict was reported to claim, he was still the pope.
The massive massive crisis in the Church had taught me how corrupted the shepherds as a whole are. Are there some good ones, of course. But as a body, they deserve censure. I could very well believe that they pulled a fast one with Bergoglio’s election. Church history shows similar betrayal on a large scale of those entrusted with the care of God’s People.
Infiltration by Taylor Marshall gave me the legal standing to reject Bergoglio, even though Marshall does not come to the same decision.
You must log in to post a comment.