News

Bishop Athanasius Schneider endorses ex-CIA Agent’s “Don’t Think” Book on Benedict’s Renunciation

7 Comments
https://twitter.com/highlander_irl/status/1577244747994783744
With Globalist Censorship growing daily, No one will ever know about the above article, if you do not share it.

7 thoughts on “Bishop Athanasius Schneider endorses ex-CIA Agent’s “Don’t Think” Book on Benedict’s Renunciation”

  3. At the end, Highlander also was defending Steven from me exposing him as a disinformation pusher from the CIA.

  4. Who says the “Substantial Error” position has been discarded (“long discarded”, yet)? Barnhart defends it quite effectively to this day. Did BXVI
    – as a Vatican II theologian – **not** hold the possibility of bifurcation of the papacy along with nearly every other post-VII theologian? Does he not claim to be doing just that in his “renunciation”? Can a Pope not err in his administrative and even dogmatic (John XXII) positions on occasion? It’s not as though his “act” was an “infallible pronouncement..”

    Not to mention, any target of a two bit CIA shill probably has something to recommend itself.

    Haven’t seen a response here to agent Reilly’s book here…other than this brief post? Probably not necessary, but will there be one?

    1. There is no evidence Benedict XVI held this view personally. There is only evidence he discussed it. St. Thomas discussed a lot of heretical views. Is he a heretic for that? And if he is not, why is Benedict XVI a heretic for doing the same thing. — I have never refuted the accusation, because it has never been made but gratuitously. And as a rule of debate, gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. As for Barnhardt, she has been arbitrated guilty for constructive fraud, so why hear her out on anything?

      https://www.fromrome.info/2022/06/29/arbitration-found-ann-barnhardt-liable-for-100000-in-fraud-complaint-in-2009/

      1. Error. Not heresy…until the theory is formally condemned as heresy. The fact that he **did** state in his renunciation that his intention was precisely to bifurcate the papacy seems to show he “held the position”.

        (Barnhart’s financial woes, indiscretions, or crimes have that much bearing on her arguments, to you? Does that or any other her past sin of hers also give you pause regarding points of agreement? I don’t know, it seems a bit ad hominem, Bother. A little petty. But maybe that’s “the Franciscan way”…LOL!)

      2. He never stated anywhere his intention to bifurcate the papacy. It’s not in his Declaratio at all. I should know, unlike Barnhardt I read latin.

Comments are closed.