The Remnant and Steve Skojec are right in saying that the Vatican II's
ambiguities which were a forerunner of Amoris Laetitia's ambiguity lead
to false ecumenism within the Church and outside.
Strangely, the non-traditionalist conservative Matthew Schmitz put it best:
"[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]... Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality as led to widespread corruption... a culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish."
It allowed the Church of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI to keep heretics and homosexual predators in the hierarchy such as McCarrick and others like him to flourish and to promote neo-sacrilegious media productions such as the Assisi fiasco and the kissing of the Koran.
This was wrong and God will judge them for their failures to be good fathers (popes) in allowing evil men into God's Church to abuse and to lead many to indifferentism and away from salvation which is only in Jesus through His Church.
Both sincerely in my opinion because of false philosophical personal ideas while not totally abandoning Thomism tried to do the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the infallible teachings of the Church while holding on to neo-modernist Personalist versions of Kantian and Hegelian philosophy as well as the ambiguities of Vatican II.
Benedict if you read his later writings finally rejected Kantianism, but apparently couldn't completely give up Hegelianism.
However, he realized in a vague way that the ambiguity of Vatican II was destroying the Church so he brought back the Traditional Latin Mass and attempted to fight against sex abuse, the Vatican gay lobby and reform the finances to the Church.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, these efforts united the financially corrupt old guard of Cardinal Angelo Sodano and the Vatican gay lobby which brought about Vatileaks and other pressures against Benedict that eventually lead to the Benedict resignation and the papacy of Jorge Bergoglio whose pontifical validity has been questioned by many even in the hierarchy from the beginning to this day.
As Bishop René Gracida has said there was never universal acceptance of Bergoglio by the Church.
But even more importantly, there are reasonable doubts about the validity of Benedict's resignation and Bergoglio's lawful election to the papacy which were never present with the other papacies which Bishop Gracida declares must be investigated and interpreted by the cardinals as John Paul's conclave constitution explicitly states.
This is one reason that Francis is not the same as Benedict and John Paul.
The other reason that The Remnant and Skojec are wrong about saying Francis is the same as Benedict and John Paul can be put simply in analogy:
John Paul and Benedict were sincere doctors with medicine that was getting the patient sicker.
Benedict realized the medicine was bad and slowly started giving good medicine.
But in my opinion, Francis is a doctor who is trying to kill the patient by slow poisoning.
In my opinion, it is obvious that Francis doesn't have even a remnant of Thomism. Nor does he apparently care about being loyal to the infallible Church teachings. He appears to be a nihilistic postmodernist like his favorite theologian Michel de Certeau.
Francis's only grasp of reality or meaning appears to be leftist and Peronist ideology as well as his close friend the kissing bishop's Bernard Haring Hegelian situation ethics all dressed in religious language.
While Benedict and John Paul upheld Church teachings on paper while not always in reality, Francis with Amoris Laetitia, the Argentine letter, the death penalty Catechism change and the latest indifferentism papal statement isn't even upholding the infallible teachings on paper.
George Gilder wrote a book called "Sexual Suicide" which helped me return to the Church because it showed that the Catholic teachings on sexuality were true and those outside those teachings were committing slow suicide.
Francis in my opinion is trying to kill the Church by slow suicide.
He will not succeed because Jesus promised the gates of Hell will not prevail.
Those who don't oppose him in my opinion are his accomplices unless they are in invincible ignorance.
In my opinion, it appears that if Francis doesn't convert he may be heading down a path of destruction along with all his accomplices if they don't convert if they aren't in invincible ignorance.
I feel sorry for them.
We must pray for him and his accomplices, but most of all we must pray for all those abused and lead away from salvation by their promotion of heresy.
Strangely, the non-traditionalist conservative Matthew Schmitz put it best:
"[T]he post-Vatican II settlement [of]... Upholding Catholic teaching on paper but not in reality as led to widespread corruption... a culture of lies... that allowed men like McCarrick to flourish."
It allowed the Church of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI to keep heretics and homosexual predators in the hierarchy such as McCarrick and others like him to flourish and to promote neo-sacrilegious media productions such as the Assisi fiasco and the kissing of the Koran.
This was wrong and God will judge them for their failures to be good fathers (popes) in allowing evil men into God's Church to abuse and to lead many to indifferentism and away from salvation which is only in Jesus through His Church.
Both sincerely in my opinion because of false philosophical personal ideas while not totally abandoning Thomism tried to do the practically almost impossible task of being loyal to the infallible teachings of the Church while holding on to neo-modernist Personalist versions of Kantian and Hegelian philosophy as well as the ambiguities of Vatican II.
Benedict if you read his later writings finally rejected Kantianism, but apparently couldn't completely give up Hegelianism.
However, he realized in a vague way that the ambiguity of Vatican II was destroying the Church so he brought back the Traditional Latin Mass and attempted to fight against sex abuse, the Vatican gay lobby and reform the finances to the Church.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, these efforts united the financially corrupt old guard of Cardinal Angelo Sodano and the Vatican gay lobby which brought about Vatileaks and other pressures against Benedict that eventually lead to the Benedict resignation and the papacy of Jorge Bergoglio whose pontifical validity has been questioned by many even in the hierarchy from the beginning to this day.
As Bishop René Gracida has said there was never universal acceptance of Bergoglio by the Church.
But even more importantly, there are reasonable doubts about the validity of Benedict's resignation and Bergoglio's lawful election to the papacy which were never present with the other papacies which Bishop Gracida declares must be investigated and interpreted by the cardinals as John Paul's conclave constitution explicitly states.
This is one reason that Francis is not the same as Benedict and John Paul.
The other reason that The Remnant and Skojec are wrong about saying Francis is the same as Benedict and John Paul can be put simply in analogy:
John Paul and Benedict were sincere doctors with medicine that was getting the patient sicker.
Benedict realized the medicine was bad and slowly started giving good medicine.
But in my opinion, Francis is a doctor who is trying to kill the patient by slow poisoning.
In my opinion, it is obvious that Francis doesn't have even a remnant of Thomism. Nor does he apparently care about being loyal to the infallible Church teachings. He appears to be a nihilistic postmodernist like his favorite theologian Michel de Certeau.
Francis's only grasp of reality or meaning appears to be leftist and Peronist ideology as well as his close friend the kissing bishop's Bernard Haring Hegelian situation ethics all dressed in religious language.
While Benedict and John Paul upheld Church teachings on paper while not always in reality, Francis with Amoris Laetitia, the Argentine letter, the death penalty Catechism change and the latest indifferentism papal statement isn't even upholding the infallible teachings on paper.
George Gilder wrote a book called "Sexual Suicide" which helped me return to the Church because it showed that the Catholic teachings on sexuality were true and those outside those teachings were committing slow suicide.
Francis in my opinion is trying to kill the Church by slow suicide.
He will not succeed because Jesus promised the gates of Hell will not prevail.
Those who don't oppose him in my opinion are his accomplices unless they are in invincible ignorance.
In my opinion, it appears that if Francis doesn't convert he may be heading down a path of destruction along with all his accomplices if they don't convert if they aren't in invincible ignorance.
I feel sorry for them.
We must pray for him and his accomplices, but most of all we must pray for all those abused and lead away from salvation by their promotion of heresy.
But even more importantly, there are reasonable doubts about the validity of Benedict's resignation and Bergoglio's lawful election to the papacy which were never present with the other papacies which Bishop Gracida declares must be investigated and interpreted by the cardinals as John Paul's conclave constitution explicitly states.
Until such time as the bishops and Cardinals take this matter on, we can only resist and should.
Attend the Latin Rite.
Refuse to financially support the NO false church.
Give gift cards only to faithful priests, no money to the diocese.
Help educate the Catholics who don't know.
There is no way this angry, vindictive, apostate should remain in the Chair. He not only threatens the entire church and the people of God, but Christendom itself. His satanic push for the invasion by Islam is only comprehensible to those who wish to see Christendom destroyed, and their dupes, and there are many.
There are certainly incongruities between their teachings, but these are not irreconcilable. As I read somewhere last year, it's a Mensheviks/Bolsheviks situation. JPII, Benedict, and Francis are all revolutionaries, but the former two were significantly more moderate than the latter.
As Benedict wrote in his manipulated, but later fully-published letter about the work of Pope Francis, "The small volumes show, rightly, that Pope Francis is a man of profound philosophical and theological formation, and they therefore help to see the inner continuity between the two pontificates, despite all the differences of style and temperament."
The inner continuity is real. It doesn't make them all the same. It does mean they were all, to a greater or lesser degree, on the same team: modernism.
Can you respond to the specific questions I have asked you in my posts and the specific evidence in those posts that bring into question your "universal acceptance" defense of the 100℅ "infallible certain[ty]" of the papacy of Francis?
Also, why are you apparently so afraid of Bishop Gracida's call for an cardinal investigation of the probable unlawful activities against Pope John Paul II's conclave constitution by cardinals in the conclave that elected Francis?
Will you give me permission to quote a email you send me on your private thoughts on Benedict and Francis for my response post later in the week?
You're in my prayers. Please pray for me.