We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Ninco Nanco • 4 months ago

Simple. Pope Benedict was the George W. Bush of Popes.

Gint • 4 months ago

Much as Bergoglio is the Obama of Popes.

NDaniels • 4 months ago

Rendering onto Caesar what belongs to God will always end with tyranny; only The Truth of Love can set us free and lead us to Salvation.

Barbara Case • 4 months ago

Well then I can hardly wait for the Trump of Popes to drain the swamp!✝️🙏

Kostadinov • 4 months ago

who will be the Trump of Popes then in your opinion? ;-)

Gint • 4 months ago

We can only pray we'll have one:-)

Guillaume • 4 months ago

Is it just me that sees the sadness and public humiliation Benedict is suffering?, the absurdity of the proclamation that the Argentinian´s "extreme goodness" is what lets the "Emeritus" still dwell inside the Vatican?. That can not be but a kind of diktat. It is what one would say to a tyrant if he lives under his dominions because he needs or thinks he needs to, and his very presence is loathed and feared by the said tyrant.
Compassion and a true understanding of what the Vatican is now and what it has been going through this past extended half of a Century seems indeed to be lacking, and also a correct apreciation of the difference between the brazen postures of youth, and the willingness to effectively amend their bad results over the rest of a life.

Doug Brown • 4 months ago

You are suggesting the comment in question by Benedict XVI was forced? That it was extorted and, in fact, Benedict XVI is being held hostage? I would not put such a thing past Francis.

Cradle Convert • 4 months ago

Yeah, like the "real" Paul Vl was prisoner in the basement and JPll had NOOOOOO IDEAAAAAA about the sex abuses and the liturgical abominations. Yeah, right. He's prisoner!!! ROFL!!!!

Joe Meshumad • 4 months ago

Wake up folks . Benedict was not forced .

NDaniels • 4 months ago

Most likely, the wolves did not approve of Pope Benedict's Christmas Address, December, 2012 which stated that "it was noticeable that the Synod repeatedly emphasized the significance of the family as the authentic setting in which to hand on the blueprint of human existence" and how "it is now becoming clear that the very notion of being-of what being human really means-is being called into question...According to the Biblical Creation account, being Created by God as male and female pertains to the essence of the human creature. This duality is an essential aspect of what being human is all about, as ordained by God. This very duality as something previously given is what is now disputed...'male and female He Created them' (Gen 1:27) no longer apply...man calls his nature into question. Man and women in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed...When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker is denied and ultimately man, too, is stripped of his Dignity as a creature of God, as the Image of God at the core of his being. The defence of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human Dignity also disappears. Who ever defends God, is defending man."

In order for rupture to prevail, the wolves needed his resignation. There would be no need for the wolves to be against Pope Benedict if he was for them.

NDaniels • 4 months ago

Why speculate, why not communicate with him away from the Vatican and determine for certain what he knows of the "initiative which is intended to oppose and react to the foolish prejudice that Pope Francis is only a practical man without any special theological or philosophical training"?

Cradle Convert • 4 months ago

Because he won't leave the Vatican. Most likely, because he was being pursued by International authorities for concealing sex abusers, he made a deal to hide at the Vatican until he dies. That's why he doesn't travel. All he had to do was step down and that's what he did. If you think he is idealistic about the faith or even has the faith, you are smoking your socks.

Rosemary Langley • 3 months ago

That is just speculation. He did more than his predecessor, by defrocking 800 paedophile priests.

Asbury Fox • 4 months ago

I have heard that rumor from the secular sources on the internet. That he was going to be indicted in court over the sex crimes of the Church.

NDaniels • 4 months ago

That makes no sense for If that were true, those International authorities would certainly be part of a cover up.

Hilary White • 4 months ago

Sure, I'll just call and make an appointment to go see him...

I've been meaning to correct this: looking at the video again, I see I made an error. Benedict Ratzinger didn't read the "your goodness is the place I feel safe" drivel. He just said it. No notes, no script. Straight off the cuff.

NDaniels • 4 months ago

Very strange, and very disconcerting. Surely someone in the Vatican is concerned for his well being.

3221 • 4 months ago

Very well said.

Gwynn Ap Nudd • 4 months ago

If he lacks the courage to do what he should on Earth, he can at least arrange for the Truth to come out after his death. That's the least he could do.

Rosemary Langley • 3 months ago

Surely this is condemning him before he's been proved guilty, or even accused of anything. We have no right to do that.

Gwynn Ap Nudd • 3 months ago

He's only the second worse Pope in history. Sure, why would anyone condemn him for giving us over to the worst? He is guilty of that. He did it. And that attitude is what lets the criminals in high places get away with anything and everything. Few are in a position to accuse these guys, much less condemn them. And those few are in on it or are too weak to do their job.

Adriaan van Ginkel • 4 months ago

Totally correct!!!!!! What you write here, is to me the final verdict on the Benedict pontificate.

Joseph Sarto • 4 months ago

There's your problem; you believed Benedict to be a "champion of orthodoxy". Compared to the other post conciliar popes, perhaps he was; but not so much when syacked against his pre Vatican II brethren..

Rara Avis • 4 months ago

I understand the desperate human need for closure; to give a name to one’s pain; to end the cognitive dissonance associated with an untenable moral, physical, and metaphysical situation and to pronounce the sentence “Crucifige eum!” with conviction, finality and satisfaction. On the other hand, we need to resist the temptation to succumb to easy answers. The latest “easy answer” across the traditionalist Catholic blogosphere appears to be that Benedict was the “WORST. POPE. EVER.” A “liar from the beginning,” Benedict is now – in blindingly obvious hindsight, of course – a manifest crypto-modernist, a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” who, from the very beginning, marched under the borrowed banner of “ecclesiastical conservatism” for the express purpose of advancing the cause of the Alta Vendita. Yes, it’s all very clear now. We were all naïve dupes and we should have seen it coming. Now that we’re awake, though, we’re going to clean some house, I tell you! On to the Mater Ecclesiae with pitchforks and firebrands! Give me a break. Benedict, like all of us, was a man of his time. His priestly formation was during the period well after Pius X had attempted to stem the tide of modernism in the Church with Pascendi and the Oath Against Modernism, which efforts were already too little too late (as I suspect Pius X may have also feared). The modernist heresy had already taken root in the Church and continued to grow, albeit sub rosa, and those whose priestly formation was in the early 20th century were already being inculcated with subtle doubts and confusion about whether or not immutable truths of any kind (especially moral truths) even existed, all under the guise, of course, of “free and open” theological and philosophical debate. There were holdouts, of course, but not enough to stem the time of a heretical idea (modernism) whose time had come. In historical context, Benedict did pretty much what his priestly formation and ecclesial environment had predisposed him to do – namely, try to “square the circle” of modernism and traditional Catholic teaching with a “hermeneutic of continuity.” That this attempt turned out to be a manifest failure; that Ratzinger was a disappointingly ordinary example of human frailty; that he was not among those few human beings able and willing to stand athwart history yelling “STOP,” says more about our unrealistic expectations of human behavior than it says about Benedict’s motives, character, or intentions. Our soi-disant guardians of Catholic orthodoxy need to calm down, take a deep breath, and stop playing Stephen VI(I) to Ratzinger’s Formosus.

Catholic Johnny • 4 months ago

Historical footnote... the CDF did not exist at the Council - it was still the Holy Office and Cardinal Ottaviani was the Prefect. Paul VI converted the Holy Office into the CDF and dissolved the Index of Forbidden Books. In 1967, he abrogated the Oath Against Modernism.

Rara Avis • 4 months ago

Apologies. Formosus.

Rara Avis • 4 months ago

I understand the desperate human need for closure; to give a name to one’s pain; to end the cognitive dissonance associated with an untenable moral, physical, and metaphysical situation and to pronounce the sentence “Crucifige eum!” with conviction, finality and satisfaction. On the other hand, we need to resist the temptation to succumb to easy answers. The latest “easy answer” across the traditionalist Catholic blogosphere appears to be that Benedict was the “WORST. POPE. EVER.” A “liar from the beginning,” Benedict is now – in blindingly obvious hindsight, of course – a manifest crypto-modernist, a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” who, from the very beginning, marched under the borrowed banner of “ecclesiastical conservatism” for the express purpose of advancing the cause of the Alta Vendita. Yes, it’s all very clear now. We were all naïve dupes and we should have seen it coming. Now that we’re awake, though, we’re going to clean some house, I tell you! On to the Mater Ecclesiae with pitchforks and firebrands!

Give me a break. Benedict, like all of us, was a man of his time. His priestly formation was during the period well after Pius X had attempted to stem the tide of modernism in the Church with Pascendi and the Oath Against Modernism, which efforts were already too little too late (as I suspect Pius X may have also feared). The modernist heresy had already taken root in the Church and continued to grow, albeit sub rosa, and those whose priestly formation was in the early 20th century were already being inculcated with subtle doubts and confusion about whether or not immutable truths of any kind (especially moral truths) even existed, all under the guise, of course, of “free and open” theological and philosophical debate. There were holdouts, of course, but not enough to stem the time of a heretical idea (modernism) whose time had come. In historical context, Benedict did pretty much what his priestly formation and ecclesial environment had predisposed him to do – namely, try to “square the circle” of modernism and traditional Catholic teaching with a “hermeneutic of continuity.” That this attempt turned out to be a manifest failure; that Ratzinger was a disappointingly ordinary example of human frailty; that he was not among those few human beings able and willing to stand athwart history yelling “STOP,” says more about our unrealistic expectations of human behavior than it says about Benedict’s motives, character, or intentions.

Our soi-disant guardians of Catholic orthodoxy need to calm down, take a deep breath, and stop playing Stephen VI(I) to Ratzinger’s Formusus.

catherine • 4 months ago

As long as one keeps their head in the sand, they will find no answers. Ratzinger/Benedict was and is as much of a Modernist heretic as Bergolio. The only difference is that Ratzinger, like the rat/Judas he is, was clever like the serpent able to convince you he was "orthodox".

Wake up to reality.

Cradle Convert • 4 months ago

Well, well. It's nice to see someone connecting the dots. I don't feel so alone.

ArthurMcGowan • 4 months ago

I wish the Remnant would not use gray type. I see that some text on this page is black, but the body of the article is gray. It's less easy to read.

Heloisa • 4 months ago

Agreed - and the new format isn't helpful. On my laptop it's displaying so badly I can't find anything, half the site seems to have disappeared (intended?) and the comments are squeezed into such a narrow box that some lines are only 5 or 6 words long, making reading it quite difficult! I can't see a reason for it because there's a blank space down the right hand side of the page which is just wasted. It was fine as it was - why change it?

pamino • 4 months ago

“[…] Kung, who was never removed from the priesthood despite his manifest heresy?”
Watch it. No one can be removed from the priesthood, but a priest can be laicised, i. e. deprived of the status of cleric.

Asbury Fox • 4 months ago

I believe Hilary White and others will have to address the topic of Sedevacantism, because as Catholics are waking up, they are being tempted by it. As neo-Catholicism is collapsing, those confused, are now despairing and falling for the dangerous heresy of Sedevacantism. Another error existing as a false answer during this current crisis and apostasy predicted by Scripture and Fatima.

Gint • 4 months ago

"I would not say that the pope is not the pope. But neither would I say that you cannot say the pope is not the pope" Abp. Lefebvre, 1979

"It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait". Abp. Lefebvre 1986

Lefebvre said this about JPII over 30 years ago. Do you really believe, given all that Bergoglio has done, that Lefebvre, were he alive today wouldn't lean towards sedevacantism? So please, spare us all the heresy of sedevacantism nonsense.

Asbury Fox • 4 months ago

No Lefebvre will not be a Sedevacantist today. It has been a long time since 1979 and the fruits, heresy, and chaos of Sedevacantism is more clear today. Lefebvre would have been were he always would have been, leading the SSPX resistance against the Modernism in the Church and the Popes.

Gint • 4 months ago

Can you show me exactly where sedevacantism is identified as a heresy?

Asbury Fox • 4 months ago

The Church has not yet officially commented or addressed the issue of Sedevacantism. In the future, I do believe a holy Pope, and a restored Church, will declare Sedevacantism to be a heresy of our age. So it's a heresy in reality, that has yet to be officially defined. Sedevacantism is a heresy against the attributes of the Church. Everyone knows about the four marks, but there are also three attributes: Visibility, Infallibility, and Indefectibility. Sedevacantism is a denial of the indefectibility and visibility of the Church.

Gint • 4 months ago

With Infallibility are you saying everything the pope says must be adhered to and not questioned because he is infallible? That is so far from the teaching on that subject it's borderline heresy itself. The conditions for infallibility are extremely narrow and rarely used. The last infallible teaching of the Church was 1950, re: The Assumption of Mary. Unless you're saying the pope is the Church in all ways, which itself is the error of papolatry.

Asbury Fox • 4 months ago

I am talking about the three attributes of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has the attribute of Infallibility. The Church herself is infallible. I was talking about the attributes of the Church, not the papacy or papal Infallibility. The Catholic Church has four marks and three attributes.

Tom A. • 4 months ago

What happens during interregnums? Sedevacantism is not a denial of indefectibility. Saying a Pope can issue heretical documents is a denial of indefectibility.

Asbury Fox • 4 months ago

Of course there are intrregnums. That is a given. You can't have had an interregnum since 1958, when there have been six conclaves and six valid elections.

Tom A. • 3 months ago

Well thats your opinion that they were valid.

Enteajay • 4 months ago

I agree wholeheartedly with this sadly very logical and comprehensive analysis. "The wolves eating the sheep," indeed. But my dirty Sicilian mind, which has never failed me to date, also leads me to suspect that there's something more to this whole debacle. I believe Ratzinger was blackmailed, either due to his own (hidden so-far-unknown) shenanigans, or that of his brother, or both. Don't forget there was a pedophile ring scandal in the Domspatzen, the famous German choir led by Fr. Georg Ratzinger (1964-94 when most of the abuse went on), involving some 231 child victims. "The pope's brother was never named," the media said, but how would it have been possible that he didn't know what was going on when all who knew him said he controlled the choir completely? Inquiring minds would sure like to know.

B1 • 4 months ago

Even so, choosing a brother over Gods office conferred upon you is a big call!

Heloisa • 4 months ago

Maybe, but we are all weak and sinners - I really think people should be more objective over Benedict and quit judging him subjectively. That's not a comment aimed at you (just in case it reads like that !) but some people seem to mix up assessing and judging his actions etc as Pope, Pope Emeritus, Priest and Cardinal etc. (obviously necessary), with judging him and his personal culpability. At the end of the day, both he and Francis and all the suspect characters are persons and souls whom God loves and wishes to see saved. None of us can see into their souls to know what's going on there or how God is choosing to act therein.

As I said, your comment was just the one which was convenient to reply to - probably because of its brevity! So please don't take offence.

lollymae • 4 months ago

This article connects all the dots of the dribs & drabs of my "waking up" four years ago to the horror of what happened at Vatican 2 (from seeing the carnage!). How stupid of us to be pining for the days of Pope Benedict, when it was all obviously a "progressive" (slowly now) construct of New Church! This bolsters my suspicion of anyone inside New Church! Stay away! Thank you (once again) Hilary White for this searing and important information.

NDaniels • 4 months ago

It would not surprise me if the Mystical experience Pope Benedict experienced, had to do with the essence of The Filioque and The Unity of The Holy Ghost. Over time, I believe Pope Benedict realized the need to affirm The Unity of The Holy Ghost due to the false ecumenism of Vatican II. Rupture comes from the denial of The Unity of The Holy Ghost which affirms that there Is only Word of God, One Truth of Love Made Flesh, One Lamb of God Who Taketh Away The Sins of The World, Our Savior, Jesus The Christ, thus there can only be One Spirit of Perfect Love Between The Father and The Son, Who Proceeds from both The Father and The Son, in The Ordered Communion of Perfect Complementary Love, The Most Holy And Undivided Blessed Trinity.l

Adriaan van Ginkel • 4 months ago

May that be true, what you say.

NDaniels • 4 months ago

Why not use The Charitable Anathema? Vatican II, erroneously did away with it, making it appear that it is possible to be with Christ, if one dissents from The Deposit of Faith, and thus denies the trinitarian relationship of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Teaching of The Magisterium. One cannot be in communion, and autonomous simultaneously; being in communion is not a matter of degree. If you are not with Christ, you are against Him.