REPORT: Vatican knew bishop close to Pope took naked selfies…

That's false. Benedictus rejects that shit in church documents he made as a cardinal and in his books.
Where did you get that idea?
Only faggot American priests and our enemies try to make us believe that's the case. Even Vatican II is explicit in saying - don't believe in Jesus? Into hell you go.
The Church still believes and will always believe in superssesionism.

But why did he have to resign?

He said quite correctly once that outside his apartment he had no real power over the governing of the Church (politically at least)

“A mission to the Jews is not foreseen and not necessary.” At the same time, it is true that Christ gave His disciples a mission to all peoples and all cultures. For this reason, Benedict affirms, “the missionary mandate is universal – with one exception: a mission to the Jews was not foreseen and not necessary because they alone, among all peoples, knew the ‘unknown God’."

Dialogue, but no Mission.

Yeah I've just seen some of his words on "Jesus of Nazareth" for example.
While he insists he writes those books not as pope and encourages people to criticise if they want, it's a terrible sign that a pope should write such heresies.

Tell me who are your friends and I tell you what you are. All the references he makes related to the Jews are the opinions of PROTESTANT LIBERAL theologists. No mention of medieval theologists or Church Fathers who would kill the first man that said such a thing.

I kinda like Benedictus for example I love his encyclical Deus Charitas Est, he is an extraordinary theologian sometimes, but some of his things make me face palm.
What I should have said in my above post is that he didn't put that shit in official documents and even in early books. I wasn't aware for example of the heresies in Jesus of Nazareth.
The daily bread in liberal "Catholic" circles.

Attached: kekkles-the-klown-ssm.jpg (105x128, 7.21K)

Benedict, as I understand it, is not saying that the Jews will be saved without Christ. He is saying that the Church does not have a mission, as an institution, to corporately convert the Jews as a people. As a corporate entity, the Church should not concern itself with the conversion of the Jews. Individually converting a Jew? Absolutely nothing wrong with that in his opinion.

Benedict is viewing things from an eschatological perspective, the Jews will convert at the end of time. He, btw, quotes St. Bernard of Clairvaux in this. In fact, he is actually in line with both St Bernard of Clairvaux and St. Thomas Aquinas (I have only heard that St. Thomas espouses this in his work on Romans, but I have not investigated further, so please correct me if I am wrong).

St. Bernard of Clairvaux encourages Pope Eugene III’s institutional mission to everyone besides the Jews in his De Consideratione:

No, you're severely uneducated. What the Church has always believes is you can't get into the kingdom of heaven without accepting Christ's salvation. And you know hell isn't the only place other than the kingdom of heaven in catholic dogma.

Just because the Jews will be saved in the end it doesn't mean we shouldnt try to convert them.
The Apostles themselves did it.
And if only the last generation of jews are going to be saved should we let this one go to hell without even trying? Spread the gospel to every creature. Jews included.
I don't agree with Ben in that regard. He quotes St. Bernard but goes way beyond what it should. Besides no church father there shouldn't be a mission to evangelise the Jews.
Benedictus is falling for the liberal protestant meme to don't offend Jewish feelings.

You've got it wrong. Theres only hell and heaven as final destinations. The souls in purgatory are believers in Christ and those are already saved.
And the limbo is in hell, the upper most part so to say. Its where it is thought unbaptised children go.

Benedict doesn’t believe that we should abstain from converting Jews, just that the corporate (wholesale, if I can take this liberty, and some may still deny the Truth) conversion of Jews is destined for later. He is just repeating St. Bernard in perhaps too ecumenical a language, but he doesn’t commit any heresy that St. Bernard couldn’t be accused of himself. I think he is far too open in this case due to his experience with Jews, which I suspect (though I do not commit) is coloured by the Holocaust and all that.

Though I do not agree with him that missionary activities should be reduced to what he prefers, his views are entirely within the Faith and I do not think he goes beyond St. Bernard. Even if he goes too far, that doesn’t mean he is a heretic, only that he is in error, which plenty of Saints have been in; no doubt he would bow to the Church’s correction. Furthermore, he does believe that Jews should be converted, as it has always been done in the past since the Lord Jesus, the Apostles and other converts of Judaism, just not a corporate conversion, which is due at the end of history. So he isn’t against evangelisation of Jews.

I would agree that he tends to be too ecumenical, to my chagrin, and cites Protestant theologians, but he doesn’t, to my knowledge, compromise the Faith in any way in doing so. Sometimes he even trashes them.

What we need to watch is misinterpretations of his writings that could be detrimental to the faith, but we must do that with the writings of all the faithful. I think we can all agree, especially Benedict, that we should caution against dual-covenant theology, which I can only see as anathema to the Faith.

Well he winnie the poohs up a bit in his book Jesus of Nazareth. It gets way to protestant and apologist of the Jews that dindo nothing.
And besides St. Bernard mentions some Fathers say so, but in doesn't say which fathers teach this. As far as I know non of them. An unfortunate commentary on his part though, and I don't see why Benedictus uses him as his an authoritative teacher of this particular doctrine. It's just the opinion of a Saint which like you said they commit mistakes sometimes.
This thing that the Jews will be saved en masse in the end of the world is based on millennial theology which was rejected if I'm not mistaken by the council of Ephesus although lots of the early Fathers supported it based on a opinion of St. Papias on the Apocalipse (which he says its his own and not made by his master St. John) even though based on this testimony many fathers took the bait. Luke 21:24-25 apparently doesn't give much time between the conservation of the whole gentile world and the End of the World itself, so the only way to give time of the Jews to convert en masse would be to assume the millenian view. 1000 years is long enough. But since milleniarism is out of the picture, and the great convertion of the Jews can't be extract from scripture we have no grounds to take it for granted. Might be true or not, bit I wouldn't base my theology on it.

Another thing is that in the same book he says that the part where the Jews say in Matthew "his blood be upon us…" isn't historical is literal heresy (unconscious I hope) Benedictus here falls for the historical criticism meme (even though he critises it later in the book). Pope XII when saying textual criticism had its good things warned us not to go against tradition and the dogmatic document of Vatican II about the bible says every historical thing there is true.
I guess Benedictus did this not to offend the Jews and getting into the meme of the non guilty Jews, a opinion that cannot even be extracted from Nostra Aetate which states the obvious (although the ADL must have a different version that catholics do only then they can say their shit).

Another thing is that he does is that he gets influenced by the protestant theory that out sins became really Jesus's and his death was the punishment for them, unlike we do we say that he was a pure immaculate gift, a true sacrifice. Its in this point where the sacrifice of the Mass gets its logic.

Either way, I like Benedictus, he was probably the best theologist since Vatican II and did an extraordinary job as the head of the CDF, he condmend the freemason, worked in Dominus Iesus etc, but he should have been carefully with his private theological studies, because even though in his books he says he is writing not as pope, but people seeing his name on the cover will take those words as the words of the successor of Peter.
Anyway I hope he lives some more years because we might need his help again.

Chesterton said it best.

dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/militantly-clueless/

It's worldwide indeed. South America, Asia, Europe, North America. You can find stories of abuse everywhere. Always Catholic.

The Mother of the Lord is weeding out the imposter church.

Well, I don’t necessarily disagree with your criticisms of his work. I wouldn’t say this particular incident is heresy if St. Bernard says the same thing, though I disagree with it. I think any work should be surveyed, so to speak, for errors. However, I would say that he doesn’t intentionally pursue errors and heresy, especially in reading his other books, encyclicals and documents; in fact, he seems to intentionally and genuinely want the Truth, and is very orthodox when I compare his works to some I have of the Saints.

I can only say now, that I pray to God that he be forgiven, and all of us forgiven, for errors he has made in his work and that God may illuminate his heart.

Yep, only Catholics molest people, there have never ever been any cases of pedos operating out of other churches, other religions or secular orgs.

I mean even if St. Bernard said heresy it doesn't mean anything. Everyone commits mistakes but only those that insist in their heresies against the church are going to hell. Heresies committed in good faith and ignorance aren't a sin at all.
Same

Attached: 1476826958188.png (186x160, 29.76K)